Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 7 February 9 February >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g11, this guy has created several articles on his own unpublished books and characters. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Two-Thousand Year Man[edit]

The Two-Thousand Year Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a character in an unpublished book whose article does not exist and would likely not pass WP:NB. Could not even find the author in a Google search. --Non-Dropframe talk 23:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I had been hoping this article would be about the 2000 Year Old Man created by Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner. However, it isn't. The book this character will appear in has not been published yet, and may not even have been completed yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RZ DVD Creator[edit]

RZ DVD Creator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indications of notability. Neither WP:NSOFT nor WP:GNG way, not even editors' reviews on download sites! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another non-notable and overpriced video file converter among the many out there. Nothing here suggests notability. Nate • (chatter) 08:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Nothing suggests that this DVD burning software has made history in its field. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep please keep this page, a notability dvd authoring software, Im one of its user, we can found it on topten, ehow, facebook, twitter, blog, pressrelease, pcmag, cnet, etc. and I will imporve this page, add References, Sources and history info, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davikolin (talk • contribs) 07:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Author-generated descriptions (like that on CNET) don't count. Facebook and Tweeter are WP:SPS. TopTen (the only source not generated by author directly) doesn't seem reliable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No RS significant coverage. Created by an SPA as possible advert / promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Note - deletion is on notability grounds; this is not a copyvio, as the source cited was a WP mirror. JohnCD (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fraidy Katt[edit]

Fraidy Katt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable band. No reliable sources found to indicate notability. Mattg82 (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suso (footballer)[edit]

Suso (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was closed, already history-merged to Mayo Association Football League. (non-admin closure) Bmusician 03:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mayo & District League[edit]

Mayo & District League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No longer needed, because the page were moved through merging request. Abani79 (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. The consensus below is that the company is notable and should receive coverage on Wikipedia. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rouse Properties[edit]

Rouse Properties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Current references are to the company's own website. I can find a few g-news hits: one is a writeup in a reliable investment blog, but I don't think this individually asserts notability. The rest of the dozen or so g-news hits are about equally split between press releases and trivial mentions when the real subject is a mall that the subject company owns. I'm just not finding enough independent, non-trivial coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livitup (talk • contribs) 21:51, 8 February 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This business owns and manages a number of shopping malls, though of course they have to put it more grandly than that: It is amongst the largest mall owners in the United States with a geographically diversified portfolio that spans the United States. A blog (not usually a reliable source) that suggests that the business might be undervalued is not a witness to significant effects on history, technology, or culture. And, frankly, owning a number of shopping malls probably doesn't get past minimal significance either. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the ground that an appropriate coverage of major business is notable. A business that manages a number of notable properties is, looked at rationally, somewhat likely to me more notable than they are--and it would provide a place for merging/redirecting malls it owns that aren't notable. Inherited notability has nothing to do with this--that refers to a minor derived notability, something that owns many notable things anything is not derived or subsidiary to it. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have to agree with DGG; a company which owns a large number of notable malls is likely to be notable. There was a POV issue, but I've started to fix that, and will have a look for some more reliable sources. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have found two reliable references - one from MarketWatch and once from Seeking Alpha - and added them to the article. That should more than satisfy the notability criteria. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bmusician 03:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tivoli Pond[edit]

Tivoli Pond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems insufficient as a standalone article unlikely to get larger than a stub. I'd suggest that it be merged with the Tivoli Park article (there's enough material here for a subheading and a paragraph); I'll take care of moving the content over, but that will leave a redundant stub. Tyrenon (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the information has been transferred, so now this is a redundant article on a pond within a city park.Tyrenon (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The pond is covered in depth by multiple reliable sources: [1][2][3][4][5][6] (and others). If it is to be merged, there's at least as much reason to merge it to Tivoli–Rožnik–Šiška Hill Landscape Park (yet to be created), of which it is part, than to merge it to Tivoli Park. I think it is best to keep it as a stand-alone article and expand it with the material from the provided references. --Eleassar my talk 22:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some additional sources:
Articles: COBISS 901437 , COBISS 624189, COBISS 21680345, COBISS 625213, COBISS 895037, COBISS 625469, COBISS 14073916, COBISS 1228604, COBISS 14026556, COBISS 12815676
Books: COBISS 20057305, COBISS 571780, COBISS 1544131, COBISS 105587200
--Eleassar my talk 09:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The pond has an interesting social history in Ljubljana and the article can be developed further with this. It is featured on many old Ljubljana postcards, and it would be interesting to include some of these. It also appears in some works of literature (e.g., Mile Pavlin's Spomladanski mraz: roman; Bogdan Novak's Tiha zaobljuba), which could be further explored, and it played some role in the ethnic history of the city (e.g., hosting the Laibacher Eislaufferein). Doremo (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, there are many sources available and as said above, it has its own story to tell. --Tone 10:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can see where the nominator is coming from, but I think this is sufficiently notable to be kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Though the keep arguments slightly outnumber the delete arguments (21 to 16 by my count), neither side makes such a compelling policy based argument to sway my interpretation of consensus towards either a clear keep or a clear delete rather than the quite obvious lack of consensus in this discussion. henrik•talk 11:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming[edit]

AfDs for this article:

DRVs for this article:

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is an inherently non-neutral WP:POVFORK with several problems related to WP:NPOV, as well as WP:UNDUE and other issues. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and restrict AFD nominations to one per year For reasons expressed by Stephan Schulz above NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC) I'm moving my !vote to the post DRV section. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. Or No Consensus, if you prefer. Does the nominator have any new arguments over those used in the previous nomination (and review) from October last year? --Merlinme (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - renomination only 3 months after a Keep decision, with no new arguments ? Seriously ? Gandalf61 (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although the previous AfD was closed as Keep that closure was overturned at DRV. Hut 8.5 19:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per WP:HORSEMEAT.--WaltCip (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to delete per the reasoning of the below commentary. Upon further investigation, the article does read very much like a POV fork.--WaltCip (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
POV fork of what? Where is the article, subset of an article, or list that this is a POV rewrite of? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article." - WP:POVFORK 86.** IP (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading WP:DUE a bit more careful.. First There is a neutral summary in other articles. Secondly the list contains a lead that is entirely devoted to presenting the mainstream, and stating that these scientists all hold views that are considered outside the mainstream. We can of course make it even more explicit, thats up for discussion. Thirdly you see to forget to read WP:DUE's 2nd paragraph, which is the one most pertinent to this discussion, since it covers how to handle list/article neutrally that are entirely devoted to a tiny minority->fringe concept (i quote):
In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. Wikipedia:Fringe theories and the NPOV FAQs provide additional guidance
We follow each of the above to the letter. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per all the above. I would hope that nom will take the reaction to his nomination to heart.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah let's get rid of that non-consensus galileo bastard as well. Obviously science is a vote not a process. Greglocock (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Wikipedia notability ≠ scientific importance. Article has sufficient notability per Wikipedia standard. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is part of the problem the title of this list? It gives a characterization that is too strong for some of the scientists on the list. "List of scientists questioning the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" would be more accurate. "List of scientists who are climate-change skeptics" has the additional advantage of being much shorter.  --Lambiam 19:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hurrah, a positive suggestion Greglocock (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Comment This (edit) is "could be" a "hit list". It is possible that such articles are not neutral in point of view in general. Such articles may/could do little more then single people/persons out as possible targets for any number of abuses. Perhaps such lists require a policy review and amendment by the Wiki. in my opinion. That the article has been nominated for numerous deletions is an indication of an inherently flaw in the deletion process requiring perhaps administrative oversight or it is very likely we will review it yet, again. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: Reopening debate per consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 1. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restrict Nominations to Once Per Year. Without discussing the merits of the article/list, there seems to be a problem with excessive nominating here. I think a restriction of the discussion is in order.Tyrenon (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See my speedy-delete policy proposal at the village pump. Specifically, I am proposing that any renom in under 6 months must set forth a new argument or it can be SK'd, but any renom based on a new argument would always be OK. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a WP:QUOTEFARM, a WP:POVFORK, has NPOV problems - darn good reasons why people keep renominating this. The fact that a bunch of people like it doesn't seem like a compelling reason for keeping. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 23:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete: Clearly in violation of basic NPOV policies, and could never be brought within them in anything like its current form. An appalling article, probably the worst thing Wikipedia's made. It's had several AfDs which were closed as No Consensus in the hopes that it might be fixable; this only resulted in the WP:OWNers chasing off anyone who was trying to suggest changes, by insisting on endless bureaucracy before any changes. Everyone knows this is a problem article, no reasonable person thinks, after 4 AfDs, that the people who have claimed WP:OWNership will ever allow it to be brought in line with policy unless it's deleted. It's a Quotefarm, meant to push a signgle sifde of the devbate, by presenting arguments from one side in EXTREME detail, while forbidding the other side a response, because it's supposedly "just documenting views". And this is not going to change; it's been in this state since before the first AfD, and is only getting worse as time goes on. When an article violates basic Wikipedia policy - NPOV is one of the five pillars - and its very nature means that it can never be brought into line with this fundamental Wikipedia policy without throwing everything out and starting over, it must be gotten rid of. 86.** IP (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abuse of process - the correct conclusion from the above AfD was a keep, by my count. I know wiki is not a democracy. Greglocock (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It had run for a matter of hours when it was closed. The abuse of process was the premature shutting down, when only the page regulars had a chance to respond. 86.** IP (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (COMMENT: This editor also !voted up above, prior to remand from DRV.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)) It's not a POV fork; the page clearly states what the consensus position is and how the people on the list are disagreeing with the consensus position. NPOV is defined as: "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." I don't see how this article takes sides. With specific reference to Undue Weight, the article even uses a graphic to point out in how small a minority the listed scientists are. WP:QUOTEFARM is an essay, not a guideline, and the article is not even in violation of QUOTEFARM, as QUOTEFARM specifically allows as many and as long quotes as are pertinent; in this case, the quotes are no longer than necessary to demonstrate that the person belongs in the list, i.e. the quotes are all pertinent. I also disagree with many of 86.*'s assertions regarding the article "getting worse", being "chased off", etc. I have, for example, cut down the length of some of the quotes, and provided additional context for many of them (although I haven't finished this yet). Have a look at [7] for an indication of how 86.*'s suggestions were discussed on the Talk page; I don't think it's fair to characterize this as being "chased off". It would be more accurate to say that 86.* stopped contributing to the Talk page. --Merlinme (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (5th nominator) (COMMENT: This editor also !voted up above, via AFD nomination, prior to remand from DRV.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC))- I think 86 just summed up my reasons for nominating better than I did in the nom plate. I just don't see how any reasonable person can construe this article as anything other than a POV fork of Global warming - in just the same way that an article called, let's say, List of reasons to vote for Mitt Romney would be an obvious POV fork of Mitt Romney, or List of critics that gave Moneyball a negative review would be a POV fork of Moneyball (film). It seems so obvious that this article has gone way off the rails, and yet anyone pointing out that this article has serious, irreconcilable NPOV problems gets shouted down. The heart of my argument is this: WP:NPOV#Point of view forks states:[reply]
"A point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article (in this case, Global warming), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia."
I see no room for ambiguity in the fact that Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, one of our most basic guiding principles, states "POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia. [full stop]" It's not just something to be considered and argued about for months on end. It's grounds for deletion. What I don't understand is how the wide variance between this article and WP's fundamental policies has evaded several editors and a few admins in these deletion discussions. Do we really even need consensus to delete something that obviously contradicts WP's most basic principles? I would think the very fact that this article has been nominated for deletion 5 times, if anything, would indicate a vote of no confidence from the broader WP community. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that Global warming is a top-level article, and that it doesn't contain (or has room for) information, that could be considered to be forked off into this article? What you basically are saying is that WP:Splitting is against fundamental Wikipedia policy... You claim that the article is POV, but you do not describe how this is the case, considering that the lede makes it extremely clear what the majority view on climate change is and that these scientists are in the tiny minority to fringe category. Your examples seem to be advocacy based, but what does this list advocate? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I'm not saying there is nothing of any value here at all, but that what's useful here can and should be merged into Global warming.:If something here doesn't belong there, I wonder if it really belongs in the encyclopedia. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By arguing for merger, you invalidate your deletion nomination. Please see WP:MAD and WP:SK, "proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". Warden (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right about that, but there's really nothing to see here. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 05:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the existence of this article is inherently non-neutral. Anyone who reads it is going to be left with the impression that there is a large body of respectable scientists opposing the main aspects of global warming, giving undue weight to this tiny minority view. I know that there's a very brief explanation that these people are a tiny minority at the start of the page but that simply isn't going to be enough to counter the impression given by the walls of quotations that follow. WP:POVFORK additionally prohibits an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts - this article is highlighting the viewpoint that the mainstream understanding of global warming is flawed. The proper, neutral way to cover the topic of the level of support that global warming receives amongst scientists is to have an article which discusses both support and opposition to the idea and gives due weight to each. If we tried to do that here by adding much more discussion of scientists who support global warming then the article would cease to be a list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and start to become something like Scientific opinion on climate change, which already exists. Hut 8.5 17:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is our policy that Wikipedia is not censored. Warden (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CENSOR says that Wikipedia doesn't remove encyclopedic content because people may find it offensive. How is that remotely relevant to NPOV concerns? Hut 8.5 18:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that people wish to delete this article because it offends them - the topic seems to be a holy war. This article forms part of a set which presents the various views of the climate change matter and so NPOV is satisfied. Climatology seems to resemble economics in that its theories are not readily resolved by experiment and there are complex feedbacks due to political effects. We should be open and tolerant of the resulting variety of opinion, just as we have numerous articles about different economic theories and their proponents. Warden (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly, keep. I think this list is verging on being a coatrack for crackpottery, and certainly serves to encourage the lunatic fringe on Wikipedia. I also think it's bordering on a WP:SYN violation, and certainly we ought to rename it to something closer to NPOV (see the third AfD for reasoning and discussion about this). But we also have to recognise that climate change deniers do exist, and some of them are scientists. It's not completely unreasonable to have a list of those scientists on Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 18:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the thing to consider is, are they notable en masse? Surely we can note on the scientists' individual articles their stated concerns about global warming, but what are we here saying collectively about such people? I have a hard enough time accepting wiki-categorization on ideology, but this IMO isn't even that, it is just a stance on a scientific matter. Tarc (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I definitely think anthropogenic climate change denial counts as ideology. There are fundamentalists and everything. But on the more substantive point, I don't think they are notable en masse. I also don't think they need to be. This list is basically navigational: a way to group content that's thematically related, as an aid to researchers.—S Marshall T/C 19:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons I advanced in the previous discussion: The argument that this list constitutes original research is convincing. In the light of WP:BLP, a list of living people selected on the basis of having taken a controversial position should only be compiled if the person is explicitly stated by a reliable source to have taken the controversial position. But in this case, editors have applied their own judgment as to whether the quoted statements constitute "opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", which is inadmissible original research. The [now veiled] reference to Wikipedia's notability guideline as a basis for inclusion (a standard not to my knowledge used by any reliable source) is further indication of this.

    In addition, it is not clear how the topic of "which scientists oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming?" (beyond the general topic of climate scepticism) is even notable. It's not immediately clear from the article that it has been covered, as such, in reliable sources.Also, as the lead makes clear, the position of the people listed here is broadly speaking a fringe position in climate science, and therefore covering the people who hold it separately, at this level of detail, raises serious WP:FRINGE and WP:POVFORK concerns, because it gives undue prominence to the view of a small minority in a very controversial field.  Sandstein  19:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, and restrict AfD nominations to one per year. These persistent attempts to delete the article are tendentious, tantamount to repeatedly throwing crap on a wall hoping that someday it will stick. It's the same old tired arguments, hashed and rehashed, with no showing that there will be any different result except by exhaustion of the parties. It's an abuse of process. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)
  • Strong Keep we're apparently once again back to the invalid POV-fork argument. WP:POVFORK of what content? POV fork is not just a term to throw around, they have characteristics, none of which this list falls under. The WP:POV claim is an argument that calls for WP:SOFIXIT not deletion. Basically this is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT AfD. What should be considered is notability and nothing else, and to claim that the topic-area (sceptical scientists) that the list covers isn't notable, is to me rather strange. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument would be far more believvable if it wasn't in exactly the same state as it was before every previous AfD closed with it being given another chance. If this article WAS fixable, the dozens of people who have tried would have. It's not. It's unrepairable garbage, which, if this is closed any other way than delete, will just need to be AfD'd again after a certain amount of time, in a further attempt to get rid of the biggest violation of policy on Wikipedia. 86.** IP (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(laughing) Check your facts, please 86. The article has been edited this very evening, in an attempt to make the article comply with WP:FRINGE even better than it did before. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The edits fail to engage with any of the primary problems, and my point stands, despite deckchairs being rearranged on the Titanic. The quotations contain a host of allegations, speculations, false facts, and fringe theories; the content of these is not engaged with in any way, and the mainstream view's response to these fringe theories does not appear. The quotations are the problem, a couple copyedits to the lead do nothing to fix that. 86.** IP (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm? Besides what NAEG says: If i check the talk-page, then what i find is a very active discussion on improvement, an RfC just closed with such (unfortunately with no consensus), so i cannot see that your assertion even remotely relates to reality. But you do make a good point for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Utter nonsense. You don't get to put in quotes promoting specific fringe theories, and claim that there's no need to even discuss those fringe theories. A reasonable article using those quotes would need to be four times longer in order to put the quotes in the context 'required by WP:FRINGE, but because it's such a massive WP:QUOTEFARM, and almost every quote has these sorts of problems, it'd be unreadable then. The quotes, in these massive blocks, have no encyclopedic use on Wikipedia, and thus the article is merely one big WP:POVPUSH. The discussion cannot bring the article in line with policy, it's outside of policy by its very design. 86.** IP (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)No, it is not "utter nonsense". I suggest that you sit down and read WP:DUE again. When covering topics that are inherently tiny minority to fringe, we do not debunk things per line (which makes it unreadable), what we must do instead, is to make it abundantly clear to the reader as soon as possible that these views are tiny minority->fringe, and that is certainly what this list does. The entire lede is nothing but such a description. The specific section in WP:NPOV covering this is WP:DUE second paragraph. (I refer you to User:merlinme's comment regarding "quotefarm" above) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See extended description of how it violates policy below, which proves you have o idea what policy says. 86.** IP (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to have to say delete. This list seems rather pointless, and not very encyclopedic. Plus as others before brought up, there are some POV issues with this list too. I Feel Tired (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the article is to be a navigation list that directs the reader to minority->fringe viewpoints on global warming. The reason that such a list is necessary is (amongst others) that views that are tiny minority to fringe cannot (per WP:UNDUE) be covered in the main articles about the topic. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You do NOT need unchallenged tiny-minority fringe claims in an endless WP:QUOTEFARM in order to allow navigation. WP:UNDUE requires that "the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." This article doesn't do that, since it just lets the proponents of the fringe views say whatever the hell they want, unchallenged. 86.** IP (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are repeating yourself. The quotes are there for verification purposes against the list criteria. And the majority view is explicitly described in the lead, if need be it can be described even further if anyone is in doubt... A reader cannot be in doubt that these are tiny minority->fringe viewpoints. What you appear to want, is not an NPOV description - but a debunking - but that would definitively not be NPOV (nor would it be encyclopaedic). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a breakout of an extended dialogue between editors who previously declared their keep/delete opinion. Please add additional !votes after this section.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC) No other article on Wikipedia uses massive WP:QUOTEFARMs for supposed "verificaion" purposes. As well, the specific claims need discussed. That's what policy says. The majority view isn't described in any sort of depth, only the minority views are. The majority view about the claims actually made in the article is the one that needs discussed. Example: "In conclusion, observational data do not support the sea level rise scenario. On the contrary, they seriously contradict it. Therefore we should free the world from the condemnation of becoming extensively flooded in the near future." - the mainstream view on sea-level rise isn't even mentioned outside of this quote. "Most of the increase in the air's concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities—over 80 percent—occurred after the 1940s. That means that the strong early 20th century warming must be largely, if not entirely, natural." - is the majority view discussed in enough detail to put that in context? not in the least. And the same could be said about claims in most of the quotes, which challenge aspects of the mainstream which are not described at all outside of the denialist quotefarm. A quick summary of[reply]

Parts of WP:FRINGE violated by this article:

  • "the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field must not be given undue weight." - this article includes mainly non-climate-scientists.
  • "For a fringe theory to be considered notable, it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals, even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. To be notable, secondary reliable sources must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia." - these are just random quotes that someone on Wikipedia thinks denies global warming. There is no test to show that the specific fringe views in the quotes are at all notable.
  • Wikipedia:FRINGE#Quotations is completely violated.
    • "Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. What is more, just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article. The sourced contribution must simply aid in the verifiable and neutral presentation of the subject." - Completely and utterly violated by this article
  • [After an example that's basically representative of every quote in this article: "Including such a controversial quote needs to be carefully contextualized as a particular point-of-view. Simply including such a statement in the lead or in a section on scientific evaluation of bigfoot claims is potentially misleading, non-neutral, and lacking in verifiability. The quote should only be included if it can be contextualized in a verifiable and neutral sense as a point-of-view of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Association and not necessarily a factual statement. The consensus of editors may even be to not include the quote at all."

WP:NPOV/FAQ

  • The task before us is not to describe disputes as though pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view, and to explain how scientists have received or criticized pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

WP:POVFORK

  • Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article.

Given this, can the article be fixed to be in line with policy? No it cannot; the use of the lengthy quotations are, in themselves, in violation of policy, and this could not be fixed without throwing out everything we have and starting from scratch. One cannot make specific attacks on the mainstream, and not even discuss the aspect of the mainstream being attacked, but, per WP:FRINGE, it's unlikely most of the specific theories presented in the quotes are notable, so they have no place on Wikipedia.

This article is in violation of policy, and cannot be brought into line with policy. It should be discarded. 86.** IP (talk) 08:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no test to show that the specific fringe views in the quotes are at all notable." I would have thought it would be relatively easy to show that variations of the arguments used in the quotes are all used in secondary sources discussing climate change. I'm not entirely sure what the point would be, or whether it would make the list article better, and it might be tricky to agree how to briefly demonstrate that these are notable positions; would this in fact give what are minority positions more apparent respectability? But this could be done, if it's really felt to be worthwhile.
"The majority view isn't described in any sort of depth, only the minority views are." The majority view is described, in detail, in the lead. There is a case to be made for adding more context to individual sections, possibly even individual quotes. We were involved in a discussion on this when you reverted to attempting to get the page deleted on Jimbo's page. If you spent half the energy improving the article you spent trying to delete it, we would end up with a better article.
"No other article on Wikipedia uses massive WP:QUOTEFARMs for supposed "verificaion" purposes"." This is an "other stuff exists" argument (or in this case, other stuff doesn't exist). It is not an argument as to whether it works for this particular article. And as I have stated repeatedly, the quotes don't violate QUOTEFARM anyway, as long as they are "pertinent", and they seem very pertinent to me. --Merlinme (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I give examples of how the majority view is not by a long shot described in enough detail, and almost certainly cannot be described in enough detail to fix the quotefarm. And they are typical of how this article handles them. Also, Kim claims that quotes are necessary for verification. They cannot be necessary for verification if every other article on Wikipedia does not need to violate the NPOV policy to "verify" its claims. Finally, I'm quoting policy. Don't act as if the policy doesn't exist when you reply. 86.** IP (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify which policy you think I'm "acting as if it doesn't exist"? Thanks. --Merlinme (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We most certainly need to verify the additions to the list, that is one part of WP:BLP that cannot be broken. The choice to have this as quotes in the list, as opposed to in the reference section, is an editorial decision. Personally i prefer them in the list, but am not at all oposed to alternatively having them in the reference section. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KimDabelsteinPetersen is confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The fact that the subject of an article is non-notable is a valid reason to delete the article but if the subject is notable that doesn't mean that the article must be kept, only that it can't be deleted for notability reasons. Pages can be (and are) deleted for many other reasons including WP:NOT, WP:BLP and, yes, WP:NPOV. Hut 8.5 09:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed they certainly can, NOT and BLP being the obvious ones, none of which are being argued here... strangely enough btw. since BLP really is something that should be considered here.. But NPOV? Nothing is inherently POV, it is in fact the 1st given point in WP:AfD, as what you should not AfD for... it is considered a very weak argument for deletion. Btw. what POV does the list argue? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article." - WP:POVFORK 86.** IP (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPOV is a very weak argument for deletion if the content can be salvaged through normal editing, as WP:AFD#How to contribute says. My point here is that the problem cannot be fixed through normal editing and that any article of this type would violate NPOV. It is well established that problems with an article subject that cannot be fixed through normal editing are suitable grounds for deletion.

    NPOV is a little more complex than "is this page advocating a certain POV?" The list gives undue weight to critics of climate change. Anyone who reads the list will be left with the impression that there is a large scientifically respectable body of opinion opposing the idea of global warming, a tiny minority view. Changes to the page will not fix this problem as long as the page consists of a list of scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming. It is possible to cover the topic of scientific opinion on climate change neutrally, and we have a different article which does so. Hut 8.5 12:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I doubt if it cannot be fixed. That seems to be a strange argument, and in your second paragraph we find the reason for this. It cooks down to: We cannot describe tiny minority->fringe positions because such a description by default will be non-neutral or undue weight. For this argument i will point you at WP:DUE paragraph 2. Which describes how to handle such situations.
    As for "anyone who reads the list" - this is simply incorrect. We know that roughly a half of people will say "look how few really oppose" and the other will say "look how many" (see deletion arguments of the various AfD's for documentation). But even if this was the case, then it would not be an argument for deletion. Do note that quite alot of editors who are arguing for "keep" aren't sceptics (and going out on a limb: will actually state (privately) that these views are ridiculous). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Straw man argument]. I did not say that we cannot describe tiny or fringe positions. I am saying that when we do describe them we have to portray them in a way which is in accordance with their prominence and that we should not give the impression that they have substantial support. Global warming controversy, for instance, repeatedly emphasises the scientific consenus in favour of the mainstream view, refers to evidence which supports the mainstream view and contains rebuttals to criticism of it. The reader of that article will not be left with the impression that there is scientific controversy over global warming. That is not the case here, and it will not be the case here as long as the page just consists of a list of scientists opposed to the idea of global warming. (If you have an idea for fixing this problem, let's hear it.)
  • I don't understand your second paragraph at all. The fact that many editors arguing to keep the page support global warming is irrelevant. I'm not arguing that the list should be deleted because I support global warming, and neither is anyone else. You haven't given any reasoning to support your claim that even if everyone interpreted the list as giving the impression that there is a substantial scientific debate over climate change then the page could not be deleted. Wikipedia editors interested in climate change issues are not a representative sample of our readers, and the fact that an intelligent reader who supports global warming might be able to think of a reason to dismiss the implications of the list doesn't mean the list is neutral. Hut 8.5 13:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe that i put up that strawman argument, that was my read of your comment. What exactly is the problem with describing them in accordence with their prominence in this list? This list does exactly the same as GWC, we describe the mainstream in detail, and point out that these views are tiny minority to fringe. This is a navigation list for those interested in ["sceptics": emerging paradigm changes; "mainstream": pathological science]. The list follows the policy set out in WP:DUE paragraph 2. Do please read that, since you appear to argue that it is incorrect.
  • As for the second paragraph - you stated that "Anyone who reads the list will be left with the impression that there is a large scientifically respectable body of opinion opposing the idea of global warming" - which i pointed out is wrong. We neither claim that it is scientifically respectable, nor do we leave the "impression" that this is a large body. This seems entirely to be your personal view, based on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said that presenting information about this specific fringe view in this specific format wasn't compatible with WP:UNDUE, and you interpreted that as saying that any coverage of fringe views in any format, anywhere, violates WP:UNDUE. That's a straw man argument: I wasn't saying that or anything remotely like it. This article doesn't remotely present the viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each, it briefly states the mainstream view before launching into huge amounts of quotations from proponents of the fringe view with almost no mention of the mainstream viewpoint at all. Yes fringe views can receive more discussion on pages specifically devoted to them but that doesn't mean you can get away with making only a token reference to the mainstream view. The reader is presented with the fact that an impressive number of prominent scientists with respectable credentials are making damning statements about global warming with minimal explanation that these people represent a very small minority, they are going to get the impression that there is a substantial body of opinion opposing it. My statement that "anyone" would see this wasn't meant to say that absolutely every reader would interpret it that way (which obviously isn't true) but that this would be the experience of the typical reader. These problems can't be fixed because of the format of the article: if it spent lots of space discussing the views of scientists in general then it would cease to be a list of scientists opposing the mainstream view of global warming and become a duplicate of scientific opinion on climate change. Hut 8.5 16:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion of the views are in the individuals article. This is a navigation list, that directs you to the place where the view is discussed in detail (or where it should be discussed - see failed RfC on talk). The introduction specifically states that this is tiny minority->fringe, and the quotes are there for WP:V reasons (they could be in the reference section - but that is an editorial decision). I can't see how you can state with certainty that "there is an impressive number", especially since i directed you to discussions that say otherwise. And the lead even states that the number is very low considering the number of researchers in the field. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a navigation list, it is an information resource in its own right (and WP:NLIST has nothing to do with navigation lists). I'm aware that the lead does mention that these people represent a small minority but that doesn't remotely counter the impression given by the rest of the article. As I said above you can't get out of your undue weight requirements by making a token reference to the mainstream view. And again the fact that somebody doesn't think the list is impressive is not a reason to think that the typical reader does not perceive it that way. Hut 8.5 21:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you describe devoting most of the lead to the mainstream, including a multiply sourced graphic putting the mainstream position at 90+%, as a "token reference"? --Merlinme (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The bulk of the article text does not mention the mainstream position at all apart from a brief image caption. Look at Global warming controversy as an example of a good way to do it properly. Hut 8.5 23:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is a possible argument for including more context within the sections. That's a debate I'd be happy to have. I don't see why it's an argument for deleting (as opposed to improving) the article. --Merlinme (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said elsewhere on this page if we included the necessary level of discussion of the breadth of support for mainstream viewpoint within the article then it would cease to be a list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and become a duplicate of scientific opinion on climate change. Hut 8.5 00:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First point: That the scientists are outside mainstream is used to argue deletion? That's not in line with policy - despite your dislike for tiny minority->fringe viewpoints - we most certainly cover such views. (see btw. WP:DUE 2nd paragraph).
Second point about the list being non-notable is strange, since there is quite a lot of scholarly articles discussing the tiny-minority->fringe viewpoints in this area of science. Then afterwards you conflate the notability of the list, with the notability of the views presented - that seems equally strange... of course they are minority views - thats what the list is about!
Third point: Erh? The context here is that these quotes and scientists are in the tiny minority->fringe category. That is what the whole list is about, and what we use the entire lead to describe! We can certainly add more, but saying that we do not contextualize is utter nonsense.
Fourth point: Again, the entire premise of the list, is that these are tiny minory->fringe views. So to state (again) that they aren't, contextualized, and described as minority->fringe is (again) nonsense. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep per WP:WASTEOFTIME. The subject is notable and encycopedic and supported by reliable sources (update:) There are some people asserting this is a POVFORK of global warming. Clearly, it isn't. GW is about the science (mostly), ecol, econ, pol, etc of GW. This is about people's opinions, which is quite different William M. Connolley (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment for closing admin Some of the keep/delete !votes after DRV are by editors who are elaborating on their !votes from before DRV. I tried to note these. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It seems relatively clear to me that this violates WP:POVFORK, and Wilhelm Meis in particular has presented some good arguments clarifying this point. Failing deletion, the article needs at least a clean-up to clarify more explicitly who is a scientist with relevant expertise and who is not, and the latter should not really be in the article at all (one example: "William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy"). Otherwise the title of the article seems to lend them undue credibility, violating NPOV.--Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:POVFORK means that there is actual content in some article elsewhere, which this content is a POV rewrite of. Which article might that be? Failing an answer to such, really makes for a bogus deletion argument. As for the clarification, it is something that has been proposed many times, but has unfortunately failed gaining consensus, its a discussion that can be opened again. Relevant experience right now is the very weak "has written at least one PR paper in natural sciences", that can certainly be tightened giving consensus (i'd for one argue for). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I would say the fork is precisely the topic "mainstream scientific assessment of global warming". --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      But there is no article "mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" nor is there content in Global warming that describes the tiny minority->fringe individual opinions - thus this is not a WP:POVFORK of that article.... What it might be, is split off content, it certainly is a subarticle of the summary article Global warming, just as a plethora of other articles. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a POV fork of scientific opinion on climate change. Both are about the same subject (the opinions of scientists on global warming) but in this one the content is segregated by viewpoint. Hut 8.5 18:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is most certainly not a POV-fork of scientific opinion on climate change, since that article specifically excludes individual views, and only describes the mainstream. The list can be seen as a complement to that article though (which is why they reference each other). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't only describes the mainstream, it describes how much support each view has in the scientific community. Admittedly this ends up mostly being discussion of the mainstream view because the mainstream view is overwhelmingly prevalent but that's not an artifact of the article writing process. The reason this page discusses individual viewpoints and the main article does not is because opposition to climate change in the scientific community is limited to individual viewpoints. Hut 8.5 18:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that the lead mainly describes the mainstream, and exactly how the viewpoints following are distinguishable from the mainstream, which, as you say, is overwhelmingly supported. And yes, the reason that we have a navigation list to individual views, is because it would be WP:UNDUE to describe most of these in the main articles. Global warming and Scientific opinion on climate change describe the mainstream, Climate change controversy describes controversy and minority views - with each of these having daughter articles that go into detail (mitigation, adaptation, denial, hockey stick etc etc.), and finally we have a navigation list to the tiny minority to frige viewpoints. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have two articles on the subject of how scientists view global warming. One is NPOV-compliant and is written to fairly present both viewpoints. The other is about the same subject but is explicitly written to emphasise one viewpoint. That is pretty much exactly WP:NPOV's definition of a POV fork.

You've started claiming that this list is there purely for navigation purposes (I don't see why you're linking to WP:NLIST, which doesn't discuss navigation at all). This isn't the case. As you admit this list groups people by an attribute that isn't even mentioned in the linked articles and consists of information that isn't in the linked articles. These things are characteristic of a list that is meant to be an informational resource in its own right, not one that is meant primarily for navigation. The fact that this information has been excluded from these articles on grounds of undue weight doesn't mean the list should be kept since there's no requirement that we have this information anywhere. Encyclopedic quality is best served by getting rid of inappropriate stuff, not by dumping it into one page. Hut 8.5 20:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Strawmanning now :) - No, there aren't two articles that deal with the same subject. Scientific opinion on climate change deals with the overall scientific view, as seen from assessments and scientific organizations specifically excluding individual views, and this list deals with individual sceptic views. Two different subjects. And both are written in NPOV fashion, i should hope. The difference here seems to be that you feel one has merit, and the other not.
You can deny as much as you want that this is a list, but it still is one. It follows all guidelines for a WP:LIST. And i certainly hope that the destination articles deal with the topic - afaik there are 2 in 50 where this may not be the case (one has been corrected iirc). The link to navigation lists is WP:LISTPURP#Navigation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're still using straw man arguments: I argue the page is not a navigation list and you claim I'm saying this page isn't a list at all. For that matter you're still confusing necessary and sufficient conditions: not passing WP:LIST might be a reason to delete the list, but passing WP:LIST doesn't mean it can't be deleted for some other reason. The fact that Scientific opinion on climate change doesn't mention individual views doesn't mean the two articles are not on the same topic (they are clearly both discussing the views of the scientific community on global warming) and hence doesn't have any bearing on whether it is a POV fork. Hut 8.5 23:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article." - WP:POVFORK 86.** IP (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I know you have trouble with this 86.. But the entire lead is a description of the mainstream, and a description that specifies that the views expressed are outside the mainstream. This is what WP:DUE paragraph 2 tells us to do. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly a balanced view. The lead presents a strawman version of the mainstream, free of evidence, or any of the material the quotes attack. 86.** IP (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And how exactly is it a strawman view of the mainstream? You throw out assertions here like there is no end of tomorrow. If the mainstream position should be clarified even more, then do propose some content. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
86, Do you believe it is ever possible to report a fringe view in a summary type of article, instead of the equivalent of both trial and appellate briefs presenting evidence that establishes the "fringe" nature of the minority view beyond a reasonable doubt? If you answer "Yes" then please point to a wikipedia example that measures up to your expectation? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Spectroscopy ... the study of the interaction between matter and radiated energy" - seems possible that field might be somewhat relevant to global warming ? Gandalf61 (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It might be relevant but it is not the actual field. It was only a random example in any case, just to show what I mean.--Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        This is a WP:SOFIXIT argument. Tightening the list criteria is an open option - so why not try that? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or Merge in to Scientific opinion on climate change. The central concept of this article is, and always will be in violation of WP:SYN, no matter how much cleanup is done--it is trying to demonstrate a point ("there are scientists who disagree with GW/AGW") by bringing together information that does not explicitly state the central point ("look at these people we found", instead of "here's a source that says this"). In order to not violate that guideline, an article should instead discuss the group of people as a whole using reliable sources, not attempt to demonstrate they exist by compiling a list. Near as I can tell, Scientific opinion on climate change is a perfectly appropriate place to do this. Mildly MadTC 18:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not an article, it is a navigation list to tiny minority->fringe positions. It certainly cannot be merged into Scientific opinion on climate change, since the entire point is that they are outside the mainstream, and thus aren't described in the main articles. They are sociologically interesting, either seen from a Pathological science or a Paradigm change viewpoint (depending on your personal view). The concept that it is WP:SYN to check if a quote matches objective inclusion criteria is baffling, since it makes quotes all over Wikipedia suspect (every time you quote someone in an article, you make exactly the same kind of decision: Does this quote/article match the topic at hand). If your problem is that any of the quotes are incorrectly assessed then you should remove that scientist + quote, per WP:BLP --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The accuracy/attribution of the quotes isn't the issue; my point still stands--maybe I can clarify. This article fails to establish the notability of the topic (a list of holders of fringe opinions is not notable on its own), but attempts to do so through synthesizing information, i.e. by coming up with enough members of the topic that it takes on the appearance of a legitimately notable topic. Also, "it's interesting" is not a sufficient reason for keeping the article--WP:N must be established through reliable sources. Mildly MadTC 19:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the first person here to actually doubt the notability of the list, which is interesting... the list is what has to be notable, not the individual scientists (although their notability is already established - since they have articles of their own). Lists do not have the same notability criteria as regular articles - but in case you are really doubting the notability of the topic, i would refer you to this google scholar search[8] or these articles[9][10]. And i really doubt if you haven't seen any of the numerous articles trying to determine who and what the climate sceptics are. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't dispute that climate controversy is a notable topic, I just think that a list of individual objections is not notable on its own. Un-encyclopedic at best, and WP:POVFORK at worst. Would List of scientists supporting the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming be an encyclopedic article? An even better place to incorporate this information would be Global warming controversy. Mildly MadTC 20:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, if these particular persons' opinions on GW are in fact notable in such a way that they warrant their own article, why not just include them in Scientific opinion on climate change, Climate change denial, or some such article? Mildly MadTC 19:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not an article, it is a WP:LIST. And the individual views do not have to meet the notability criteria, the list has to. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:STANDALONE. A standalone list is still an article, and are subject to WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc. I never said anything about the individual quotes, I'm saying you can't synthesize information to establish the notability of a topic. Mildly MadTC 20:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Over the weekend I plan to draft an attempt to explain why this group is notable on its own, and I'll be referencing at least in part research by a Yale/Georgetown collaborative project. Real life is in the way at the moment. Whether this will satisfy the collective notability issue, or lay to rest calls for merge, remains to be seen. ADMIN please wait thru the weekend before closing so I have time to float this coming article text in response to comments in this AFD. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC) see my !vote below instead. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably worth noting that, with minor exceptions, the only people voting for Keep are the article regulars. 86.** IP (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
86 - I for one object to being called a "minor exception". My !vote is not minor - it is as good as anyone else's. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also worth noting that, by an odd coincidence, the only people voting for Delete are irregulars, who have not worked on the article, have seldom (if ever) participated in discussions on the talk page, but seem to be attracted by any hint of blood in the water. It is telling that the only contributions you have made since December are your disputations here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, people usually don't bother working on an article if they don't think the article should exist. Hut 8.5 23:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a shame, as they would improve the article if they did. In general I find the determination to eliminate rather than improve the article a shame. --Merlinme (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People who are involved in an article or the discussions about it tend to know more about both, and to have a deeper, more nuanced view of matters, than those whose only involvement is disputation of what they haven't studied and deletion of what they don't like. I deem it a positive mark that those of us who are "regulars" are more inclined to keep. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per most of User:Sandstein's comments - POVFORK - editors have applied their own judgment as to whether the quoted statements constitute "opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", which is inadmissible original research. ...undue prominence to the view of a small minority in a very controversial field. ETC - Youreallycan 20:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So it is not sufficient that a statement describes someone as a "skeptic", but an editor needs an additional statement describing what the first statement says? Is it to be "turtles all the way down"?
Plain reading of ordinary language, and the exercise of ordinary editorial judgment (per the prescribed criteria) and common sense, do not constitute original research. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - could someone relist the AfD in the various AfD lists again? It seems to have been removed when the pre-close happened, and not readded when relisted. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the keepers: Why is this article more encyclopedic than a List of film critics who gave Moneyball a negative review or a List of congressmen who believe Barack Obama wasn't born in Hawaii? Those would be obvious violations of WP:SYN and WP:POVFORK regardless of whether or not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (like lists to the contrary, which, if they existed, would be equally in violation). I'm still waiting for a compelling argument that those articles should exist, or that this article is any different. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 06:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are the congressmen who believe Barack Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, or the negative Moneyball critics, regularly described as a group in the news for their beliefs, in the way that scientists who disagree with the consensus are? I doubt it. All of the people on the list have made public statements which criticise the consensus position; a large number have also signed public statements to papers or other media; a few have practically made media careers out of criticising the consensus position. The list serves a useful purpose because it allows the reader to find out exactly who these people are (i.e. it's a useful reference source), and also gives the reader some basic background, allowing them to form some judgement as to their relative expertise in climatology. It also gives a brief flavour of which arguments are used; I personally find it interesting that, for example, few (none?) of the sceptics question that the climate has warmed somewhat, and that CO2 should cause warming. --Merlinme (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair now, when the subject of Obama's nationality crops up, certain individuals are usually mentioned. The same is true of Holocaust deniers. But in the latter case, we have an article on Holocaust denial and a category of the notables who promote it. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 14:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) As a matter of fact, they are, even recently. Mildly MadTC 14:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, both interesting comments. I'm not American, so I'm happy to be corrected that the "birthers" are treated as a group. In that case, has anyone created an article on them? If they did, why would it be synthesis, if using publicly available sources? And, as Suriel has pointed out, if the argument that such a group cannot appear in Wikipedia is accepted, why do we have groups such as Holocaust deniers? Or, for that matter, what about Birthers#Campaigners_and_proponents? What exactly is the difference between that section and the article we are discussing? Both are essentially a list of notable people with a broadly similar fringe opinion, with enough context to support the (highly sensitive BLP) claim that they hold that opinion, and enough context to allow any differences to be shown. --Merlinme (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding Birthers#Campaigners_and_proponents, the difference would be that it's a contained section giving room views within the wider article (Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories) on the subject. Regarding Holocaust deniers, that redirects to [[Holocaust denial and proponents of that viewpoint are again mentioned within the article without having a page given to list them and quotes of their opinions. Therefore, I believe the correct approach is for this list to be deleted and the information contained on pages like Environmental skepticism. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 15:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Suriel here; the difference is that between having an article covering the controversy, discussing the viewpoints in context (such as Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories or Holocaust denial), and having just a quotefarm, hitlist, whatever you want to call it, of the individuals arguing one side of the controversy. I'm not opposed to having their viewpoints exist anywhere on WP, but not in the format that this list presents. The existence of such a list, particularly on its own page, is inherently non-neutral and invites quotefarm problems as we have seen in this list, Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 01:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sandstein and Wilhelm Meis. The inclusion criteria for the list amount to original research, the list gives undue prominence to WP:FRINGE views, and by providing a WP:QUOTEFARM of comments by those listed it amounts to a WP:POVFORK.
    (Procedural aside. At DRV, I expressed concerns about having another AFD discussion so soon after the previous one, but the consensus at DRV was that the discussion should proceed, so I am adding my tuppenceworth). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to List of scientists opposing the anthropomorphic global warming theory. It's important in order for our readers to be able to make up their own mind as to whether a scientific consensus exists concerning attribution of recent climate change. Do 85% of scientist agree, or 98%, or what? Inquiring minds want to know. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By chance did you mean "anthropogenic" rather than "anthropomorphic"? Dragons flight (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant, as this article is not about scientific consensus or AGW; it is about the scientists that allegedly oppose the consensus. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't what the list is called; it's that no such construction can satisfy WP:NPOV. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 01:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How on EARTH does showing a list of people only taken from one side help readers judge whether a scientific consensus exists? 86.** IP (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because this article is not about "whether a scientific consensus exists". That is a given, where this article starts, and is stated in the lead. This article is about the supposed dissent (opposition) from the scientific consensus. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pending explanation in the article/list why the subject of outspoken scientists opposing the mainstream on AGW is notable Speaking as a strong keeper, some of the deleters have raised the excellent question "what is notable about the group of minority scientists en masse? ANSWER: unlike the silly Obama-birther example, global energy sources and infrastructure are virtually synonymous with development and economic activity, world-wide. The principles of physics behind anthropocentric global warming are inescapable, and the policy implications of the science are immense. On the one hand we have the science - hundreds of editors reviewing thousands of peer reviewed papers - telling us there are real reasons to be concerned, and on the other we have the fossil fuel corporations, whose net worth is largely a function of proven reserves. I'm no expert, but as I understand it "profit" is about drilling and mining now, and stock value is based largely on the assumption that they can drill and mine known reserves later. As we all know, the mainstream scientific view leads to the argument that these resources should be left in the ground, and such a policy decision would cause the worlds largest corps to tank. As explained somewhat at climate change denialism there has been a steady backlash against the science and its implications. Part of that backlash are the assertions that there are a lot of scientists breaking from the mainstream view. One type are the various lists and petitions (see FAQ #2) that one could casually sign without giving them the slightest thought. Another example is this recent WSJ letter-to-editor purporting to be signed by 16 scientists (though one could quibble with the science credentials of all 16) in which they claim that "the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed." So what should a reader make of those claims? Well, follow the money. If the paradigm shifts to "just leave the stuff in the ground", then the companies own a bunch of rocks. We're talking trillings of dollars, the energy infrastructure of the globe, and the way GDP is organized around energy world-wide. So the question becomes Are scientist rats really leaping in the sea in droves to swim away from a sinking IPCC barge? Although our article (in the graphic) now reports surveys showing a very strong scientific consensus, research by Yale and Georgetown shows that a very strong majority of the US population has no idea the consensus is that strong. [1] Since (A) some political factions invest so much money telling us there is great scientific uncertainty, (B) research says that there isn't, and (C) with apologies to the rest of the world the impact on the US electorate is enormous. IMO, it would be irresponsible to not provide the most NPOV information possible about collective work of the outspoken contingent of scientists. Back-of-the-envelope petitions are not the same as a person speaking their own thoughts. We should cover this, by reporting on those who put their views into their own words. The who (often not climate scientists), the how many (42 at last count), and the venue (generally not peer reviewed professional scientific literature). I started to attempt article text, but then realized to include this in the article will be a large undertaking in herding cats. So I am going with "keep pending". I agree notability of the collective group should be in the article and my thanks to the DELETERS who brought this to the forefront, at least for me. FINALLY IMO it would be premature to make a final decision to delete the article until after a semi-consensus has stabilized around these proposed notability edits. It is quite possible that such revisions might resolve some of the other criticisms that have been raised. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think many people are questioning the notability of the subject matter. We're just disagreeing with the presentation of views in this manner. (see previous delete arguments). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 10:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is a rather heavy-handed response if the problem is only in the presentation of views. And if you are that concerned about this, how about helping us work out a solution in the proper venue, which is the talk page? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your thoughtful and well reasoned response, NewsAndEventsGuy. While I agree with your underlying position, I do not find it a compelling argument for keeping this list. What you are talking about is appropriate for inclusion in places like Global warming controversy or even Global warming, where these sources and their arguments can be put in context. I hope you will continue to contribute there. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 10:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think NAEG has presented an excellent summary of why this article should be kept. Why do you find it not compelling? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS The proposed paragraph or two that summarizes this lists collective notability, should be prefaced with a main article tag pointing at Climate change denialism. Readers should be able to find a list of the scientists that are outspoken on the issue, and then they can decide for themselves if there are a lot (or a few) and readers can assign appropriate weight to their remarks, based on where they appear (e.g., letters to the editors or peer reviewed professional literature). If this list goes away, readers are forced to wade thru the reams of he said she said political spin, allegations, and counter allegations. Removal of this list should make fossil fuel advocates happy, because it will aide and abet their making mountains out of mole hills, at least IMO. All I am saying is that true NPOV means gathering and reporting this info in an easy to search basis according to name. Not doing that creates a vaccuum that is susceptible to spin, and calls for doing that could easily be based on POV. Why is anyone opposed to providing facts about the minority view letting others assess those facts? Don't we trust our readers intelligence? I like to think that intellectual integrity will lead to the same characterization of these views that I have made, but I am not suggesting we characterize this list my way. Just that we present it, and let readers make their own judgments of claims that scientists are abandoning the mainstream in droves. We can't merge to Climate change denialism because that is about the political strategy and tactics of non-scientists. We can't merge to Global warming controversy because that article is (A) organized around the arguments and (B) includes lots of non-science arguments. If the quotes remain we shouldn't merge anywhere just because this is already so large. We should preserve this article-list as a standalone piece because lots of disruptive talk page battles in many different articles are instigated on the basis of "this scientist said..." or "that scientist said....". Such arguments from a lot of different pages get funneled/referred here so taking this list away opens the door to an endless repetition of those types of arguments, to the detriment of the project (since we end up carping over that stuff instead of improving the main text). Trust me, its bad enough with this page being here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very eloquently put by NewsAndEventsGuy. It may come as a surprise to people who don't actually follow the page, but a significant proportion, perhaps a majority, of those who support keeping the article strongly believe in the existence of climate change. This shouldn't really matter to the merits of keeping the article, of course, but there seems to be a widespread belief that this page is a conspiracy by climate change sceptical editors, which simply isn't the case. Of course more sceptical editors tend to support it, but other editors think it is a good way of testing the strength (or otherwise) of the claims in the media about the amount of scientific dissent to the consensus.
There are undoubtedly changes to the page which can be discussed. For example, we got quite close to just listing the scientists, with references to the quotes given at the bottom of the page. I personally think this would look a bit odd, but it could be done if people felt strongly enough about it. Other suggestions include changing the categories, separating out the peer reviewed research from the statements in popular media, and adding more context to challange particular claims advanced in the quotes. We've gone a small distance towards adding more context in the last year or so, and we would probably have gone further if the people who spent so much energy trying to delete the page spent more energy on improving the article. I also think one of the alternatives, the use of an essentially unreferenced category or section, as is done in (for example) Holocaust denial#Prominent Holocaust deniers and the Holocaust deniers category: [11] would be far worse, as it's a BLP nightmare. The criteria for this page are clearly stated and enforced; statements must, for example, be relatively recent (since the Third Assessment Report in 2001), allowing for scientists to change their minds. Petitions are not accepted, because it's easy to find examples of people who signed things who later retracted their signature. Off the top of my head, one scientist thought he was signing for something calling for more research into climate change. Publicly reported statements in their own words, are not really ambiguous, and make much more explicit exactly what they are sceptical about; they rarely question every part of the consensus, for example. It is also easy to verify if a dated statement is up-to-date and reflects their current views. (A more recent counter example which contradicts their earlier statements would of course mean that they would be removed from the list.)
This is one of the most viewed articles in the encyclopedia. I have yet to see an argument which persuades me that we would be better off "eliminating" it from Wikipedia than improving it, and presenting useful reference material to readers in as objective and safe (regarding BLP etc.) a way as possible. --Merlinme (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article gets about 400 hits/day on average. That's the same level of traffic as Huddersfield, say, and that's not much. Given that much of this traffic must come from the editors who obsess and fight over it, its impact upon the general population will be negligible. Warden (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that
(ActualViews) minus (RegularEditorViews) = (RealReaderViews) = a pretty small number.
Then again, the strategy contained in the memo at Climate change denialism is all about making mountains from mole hills, so depending who the RealReaders are, this article could have a disproportionate impact. Also, the very existence of this article, regardless of daily view count, has prophylactic properties which benefit the talk pages of other articles, and that contributes to building the encyclopedia overall. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NAEG's excellent statements. It is very poor practice to repeatedly challenge an article this many times---by chance it will eventually get deleted. We used to do that sort of thing 5 years ago, but I would have thought we had learned better by now. It is also a blatant expression of POV to challenge an article because you do or do not like the views of those the article discusses. (in this case, it may balance out some dislike it emphasizes how many oppose the mainstream hypothesis, some dislike it because it casts discredit on those listed because they oppose the hypothesis. Myself, I think it's the negation of all a NPOV encyclopedia stands for to shrink from covering even the most controversial aspects of something like this. Let those who want to interpret it, interpret it how they care to. DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's nponsense. We don't host A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism - we report neutrally on this notable attempt to try to disprove evolution by assembling names of scientists under denialist rhetoric, and explain why such lists are flawed. But then, when it comes to Climate change, we turn around and do host our very own denialist propoganda. I've listed a half-dozen bits of policy that, by the nature of this list, are violated horribly. The only response so far is to claim they're needed for verification purposes, when not one other article in Wikipedia needs to create a denialist WP:QUOTEFARM just to make a damn navigation list. This whole AfD's keep side is one person making a bizarre argument, and when it's criticised, someone else steps in and tries to distract attention by making a mutually incompatible argument. See the Ed Poor thread, or Kim's bizarre claim that the quotes MUST be included for navigational purposes. This is not a good faith attempt to engage with policy. There's a classic essay about these sorts of tactics. If I may e allowed to quote a philosophical text by Harry Frankfurt:
all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose. 86.** IP (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean Kim's claim that the quotes need to be kept for verification purposes, not navigation purposes. The first reason makes a lot of sense to me; the second would indeed be a bit bizarre, but as far as I'm aware no-one's used it. I copuld of course be wrong about this, but if so, please could we have the diffs. At the moment though I am seeing this as a mischaracterization of the opposing argument. --Merlinme (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are indeed not wrong about that merlinme, that they should be there for navigation purposes is ridiculous. But we do need to verify that the people added really do meet the inclusion criteria. And as mentioned elsewhere, the verification that people really meet the criteria could be in the reference section. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aside the misrepresentation merlinme points out, you also imply that i (and others) should be a climate change denialist, and i quite frankly find that laughable. You may want to look up where i stand on this issue (hint: its in the exact opposite corner). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
86, I very much appreciate the constructive phrasing and restraint against shouting in your last remark. Among the all the delete !votes by various editors there are some vague suggested alternatives, like "merge whatever is good to X". I have seen several instances where that really meant "delete all this crap because nothing is good". So I have a suggestion. How about actually BUILDING an alternative right down to the refs in your userspace sandbox? Then people could actually see what an alternative looks like. I am not saying it would win approval, but it would go a long long way toward persuasion, much farther than mere bashing of the status quo. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The alternate is simple: Throw out all the quotes. They serve as a denialist resource, and have no educational purpose whatsoever. The claims they're needed for verification purposes don't hold the slightest bit of water, since noone has ever - once- been able to point to a single other example of a QP:QUOTFARM being used in this way on Wikipedia. Either the quotes all go, or the article does, but if the quotes don't go, do' expect more AfDs, because you'll still be violating fundamental Wikipedia policy, and yoyu have never provided any coherent argument against the policty quoted, just - well, I don't want to use the philosophical term, as it has a colloquial meaning as well which'll just distract, but that quote I gave before is a definition for it. 86.** IP (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WONDERFUL PROGRESS! Setting aside hyperbole and the Christmas-light-string of policy citations, I think you just said the crux so far as you are concerned is the presence of the quotes, but you could live with the article otherwise. I did not know that until now. So perhaps hyperbole is not the most effective communication technique? Just sayin.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, NAEG, I think that more-or-less every single pro-delete vote has stated the quotes are the core problem. It's also been brought up ont he talk here, here, here, and here. Those quotes aren't going unless the article does, and if you think I'm wrong, prove it. As it stands, all I see is a group of article WP:OWNers, who will do anything to avoid having to bring their article in line with policy. That this hadn't changed after the last two no consensus AfDs is ample reason to believe that this will never change. A no consensus close surely means that more time is being given to address the problems, to see if they'll be resolved; not permission to carry on as before. 86.** IP (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
86, which part of your last remark was a falsehood, (A) the part that says you are respecting me, or (B) the part that calls me an owner who will do anything to get my way? So much for my suggestion you dispense with hyperbole...... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please, save us the persecution card, and engage with the actual substance. After five AfDs, saying "I didn't know the quotes were the problem!" is not a credible response. But perhaps you meant me specifically, but I've showed you that there have been numerous occasions where I and others have tried to present my viewpoints, but was shouted down by the article WP:OWNers. There are many more, by many people. You'll also notice that everyone who tried to fix the article after the last AfD has left the article now, having seen the futility of engaging with this group. If you have some contrary evidence or actions to point to on your behalf, present that, but drop the "Help, help! I'm being repressed!", please. And please credit me with a little intelligence before trying to act as if my views were some startlingly new opinion, which you had no suspicion of, and therefore, the article should be kept so the views can be dealt with [by dropping them down the memory hole.] If you want to engage with me, fine, but, please, save me the obvious rhetorical traps. 86.** IP (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thats untrue too, of course. I never accused you of outright failure to say you could live with the article without the quotes. I only said your hyperbole interfered with your getting that message across to me. Do you use hyperbole on purpose? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) A few months is not very long to discuss and improve a long-standing and highly controversial page. I personally believe we've made some progress. 2) We would have made a lot more progress if the people who are so eager to delete the page would spend more time discussing it on the Talk page. If you don't like the current consensus on the format of this article, then try to change the consensus. "everyone who tried to fix the article after the last AfD has left the article": well, I make that two editors: you, and Itsmejudith. Itsmejudith seemed to lose interest. It's somewhat debatable how much you engaged with other editors in an attempt to improve the article, as opposed to lobbying further for it to be deleted.
Three or four "deletionists" diverting their energy into improving the article, on the other hand, would probably be enough to change the current consensus. --Merlinme (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To the closer: An example of why I don't find any of the arguments relevant: If the quotes are solely for verification purposes, and this is a navigational list, why the frack would Freeman Dyson be given an 11-sentence-long quotation? (and that's only one example). Even in the most extreme definition of verification possible, the quote wouldn't need to be more than a sentence long, possibly with the occasional bracketed expansion, e.g. "it" might be expanded to "[average global warming]", but that's standard practice. Also, the quote could be put in the references, which removes the WP:NPOV issues. But, no, instead, we get little miniature potted arguments for each name, including a couple cases where a quote was WP:SYNTHesized from two different sources. The arguments to keep just don't hold up: This article is a WP:POVFORK, designed to push a point of view. WP:NPOV is a core policy. If it means anything, a list which has a structure - WP:QUOTEFARM - designed to violate WP:NPOV should be either deleted, or, I suppose, an IAR solution ("Delete unless all quotes are removed within one week"; "merge to Scientific opinion on climate change, etc) might be possible. But this is has been a problem article for years, and it does no good to act as if less extreme measures are possible, since all have been tried. 86.** IP (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) You're ignoring that I've cut down a lot of the quotes since the previous AfD. I also cut down Dyson, however this was reverted because it didn't have consensus. Maybe you should argue to change that consensus? 2) "the quote could be put in the references": we came quite close to doing this. If people feel strongly about it, maybe they should add their voices to that discussion? In general, such a fixable presentation point seems a very weak basis to arguing for Deletion--Merlinme (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
95% of the article is the policy-violating WP:QUOTEFARM quotations. The vast majority of article content has no business being on Wikipedia. It wouldn't surprise me if you could find 5% good content in most articles that get deleted. 86.** IP (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've probably said more than enough for one day, but I keep feeling compelled to respond because you keep making falsifiable statements. WP:QUOTEFARM is not a policy, as you imply; it's not even a guideline. It's an essay, and would not normally be enough in itself to argue for a policy based deletion. And, as I've argued many, many times, it's not even clear the article violates WP:QUOTEFARM, which is quite specifically rejects any arbitrary limit on the number of quotes; the essay only argues that quotes should be "pertinent" and in context; they're not in context if: "relevance is not explained anywhere". The pertinence and the context seem pretty clear to me. --Merlinme (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the relevance of the quotations, to the level of detail they appear? I could buy that if they were of the minimum length to show the people fit into the categories, but, as they stand, these are full-paragraph arguments. Actually, maybe this will make my views clear: The quotations are arguments, mainly from sources that would be considered unreliable for inclusion of arguments in any mainstream article on the topic, except maybe as examples of arguments used in the context of substantial discussion on the topic in the quote. The lead is not an argument, it's a statement of conclusions, which further fails to actually contain most of the conclusions being argued against in the quotes. 86.** IP (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again though, this is an argument for improvement rather than deletion. I have cut down a lot of the longest quotes, particularly where there were multiple quotes saying very similar things. Consensus to date has been that there needs to be enough of a quote not to misrepresent what is often a highly nuanced position. Of the current quotes, Dyson (in particular) is long. I did have an attempt at shortening it after the last AfD, however it was written as one complete statement, and others have argued that the full context should be kept. If you want to re-open that discussion, feel free.--Merlinme (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could certainly go for a pruning of the quotes, they've grown beyond what is needed for verification purposes, as i've said before.. The quotes should be short, succinct, and only enough to show objectively that the scientist fits the criteria. In other words: Just enough to satisfy WP:V. Any more than that needs to go to the destination article, where an indepth discussion can take place (with possible "debunking"). As for whether the quotes are in the list, or in the reference section, that is entirely an editorial decision... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is premature, as this very issue is being debated on the article talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but after 5 AfDs, and a major effort at cleanup after AfD #4 by numerous people, which was completely blocked, opening a dialogue really, really isn't enough to say the AfD is premature. This article has deep, fundamental issues. If the ownership has ended, and the article is now open to fixing the policy violations, let's see evidence first, before closing an AfD on the basis of them. 86.** IP (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
whine whine whine instead of integrity integrity integrity. I am having trouble reconciling this latest remark with your solution-seeking comments in the talk thread I just linked to. Over there, you seem to think progress is possible. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


break[edit]

  • Keep The only reason an article gets this many AFDs is because it offends people. Deleting this article means that one POV will censor what readers are allowed to learn, which is against Wikipedia policy. Remember, Wikipedia is for the readers who want to understand some topic, not the editors who are simply pushing their point of view. The deletion arguments on this page clearly point out how important it is to keep this article in the current (or similar) format. Q Science (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thsee current format violates Wikipedia policy. 86.** IP (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion. I do not agree. Q Science (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of those listed, I doubt this article really offends anyone except in their POV, in which case the article is an opportunity to exercise their NPOV intellectual integrity, after which they can work to make valuable input to improving the NPOV quality of the article via the talk page. Let us assume 86 is deeply offended by this article. Assume 86's implied status as a climate hawk is true. Now note that there has been a lot of new climate research since IPCC AR4 in 2007 that has not found its way into our coverage. QUESTION: Why is climate hawk 86 only spending his time being offended by this piece instead of updating the mainstream articles with the loads of further knowledge we have not yet covered? What is the purpose of hyperbole? How much time do the rest of us spend on this instead of improving the main articles? Assuming 86 is the climate hawk he claims to be, does he realize we are not working on those other articles in response to his offended feelings? Does something not quite compute? Uh oh, now I've done it. Bring on the ANI complaint for uncivility..... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's much eeasier to spot fundamental violations of Wikipedia policy than to be an expert on climate science. I don't claim epertise, but that doesn't mean I can't identify something horribly, terribly, hideously wrong. (The next bit is a slight exaggeration, to make my point clear.) Your argument is like saying that if there was article on Ancient Greece's descent from the Atlanteans, describing such descent as fact, that anyone who hadn't written scholarly articles on the latest Greek archaeology is clearly only offended, and therefore, we should keep the WP:HOAX. 86.** IP (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alleging "fundamental violations of Wikipedia policy" is easier than being an expert of any kind because no qualifications are required. Just jump up and yell "QUOTEFARM! NPOV! FRINGE!" If you can't get anywhere on the Talk page, go AfD. If at first you fail, try again. And again. And again. And again. Lacking any new arguments, when does this become tendentious? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When it gets deleted - its an POV pushing biased article and its continued existence demeans the NPOV of the whole en wikipedia - Youreallycan 22:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you say "WP:VAGUEWAVE"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that well argued statement, Youreallycan.
In the vague hope of keeping things civil, to summarise the positions, I think what NewsAndEventsGuy is trying to say is that if people spent a similar amount of energy to improving climate change coverage in general on Wikipedia compared to the time which they spend trying to delete this article (without having consensus that there is actually a problem that requires deletion), we'd have a far better encyclopedia. Speaking for myself, I could look at Jagged 85 cleanup again, if I didn't have to make dozens of edits defending this article from elimination. 86.*, I believe you're reserving the right to be offended by the article, which is fair enough I guess, but not in itself amazingly helpful at improving the encyclopedia or the article. The AfD process does at least concentrate minds on getting a form of the article which more in the wider community are happy with, but having failed to gain consensus at the last AfD, I'm struggling to see what's been achieved by this AfD that couldn't have been better achieved by getting actively involved in the debate and trying to change consensus on the article Talk page. Putting the quotes in references, for example, is something that might well have passed a few months ago if a few more people had thrown their weight behind it. --Merlinme (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NAEG always prefers to speak for himself, Mer. This is the third time I've said something about how you present my view of a matter in 24 hrs, and I am annoyed. Please let me speak for me, OK? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. My natural instinct is to clarify and try to avoid conflict where possible, but of course I should (and will) let you speak for yourself. --Merlinme (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merlinme, I think you're falsely assuming that I nominated this article for deletion because of its content. I nominated it for deletion because its basic construction violates NPOV policy. To me, the quotefarm is secondary to the non-neutral POV of having a list of actors on one side of a controversy. The quotefarm has developed as a result of the POVFORK, not the other way around. There is no way to clean up this list in a way that would bring it into line with WP:NPOV. Any list of actors on one side of a controversy is necessarily a POVFORK. Flush it, and start over by contributing useful material at the (arguably) neutral articles mentioned above. Q Science, I'm not trying to censor anyone, nor am I particularly offended. Since when does someone have to be offended by something to recognize that it carries a non-neutral POV? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 07:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wilhelm, I'm afraid I don't accept this argument. Is the category Holocaust deniers: [12], or the section Holocaust denial#Prominent Holocaust deniers, a POVFORK just because they are lists of actors on one side of a controversy? Surely not. On the specific issue of whether a category would be more appropriate for this information, I think WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates is relevant; the main disadvantages of a category in this case would be "2.The entries in categories can't be edited, such as adding references or annotations to them, and the user must go to the article to see these 3.There is no provision for referencing, to verify a topic meets a category's criteria of inclusion". In this case anyone who added the (highly controversial) category to an obscure scientist wouldn't have to give either a reference or have to justify adding them to the category. On the specific issue of whether the quotes are appropriate in this particular List article, Itsmejudith asked for a second opinion at WikiProject Lists. Here is that second opinion: "I think the inclusion of specific, attributable quotations, not only provides useful context, but provides useful information for the reader as well." Link:[13] --Merlinme (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Holocaust deniers isn't a POVFORK because it's not an article; Holocaust denial#Prominent Holocaust deniers isn't a POVFORK because it's not a standalone article. Making a category seems like a good compromise--I understand some here want quotes included in the article, but that's simply not acceptable under WP:NPOV without presenting the mainstream view alongside it (which quickly becomes like Moon landing conspiracy theories: a truly messy article, but still a neutral one). If a piece about that specific scientists' statement about GW can be sourced and justifiably included in their article, then the category should be added. The categories added to an article must still meet WP:NPOV and WP:V. Mildly MadTC 12:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Categories and navigation lists are equivalent, both have the same purpose. The difference between the two is where the verifiability is located (lists: directly, categories: indirectly). In this particular case a category has existed, but was removed in favour of the list, since BLP is impossible to adhere to on categories... and this is a very sensitive BLP list. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like MM just said, it isn't a POVFORK because it isn't a standalone article, it's a section within a broader article. For the record, I would have no problem with a category (as long as it meets the appropriate criteria for categories), and if navigation is truly the goal, that may actually be a good option. Other than having a navigable list of deniers, what here isn't already covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As said above. Categories have BLP problems. The quotes are there for verification of the list criteria, and to ensure that WP:BLP is adhered to. People seem rather focused on the quotes being in the list, rather than in the reference section - so a good compromise would be to move them - which should render most arguments moot? Right? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Any list of actors on one side of a controversy is necessarily a POVFORK"' - say what? Have you actually read WP:POVFORK? A POV fork is by necessity a split of some existing content into two similar articles with different POV. By your view... any list, no matter if some other content exists is a fork??? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Merlinme and Kim D. Petersen. If "any list of actors on one side of a controversy is necessarily a POVFORK", then what do we do about list of astrologers, list of works on intelligent design (which is mainly a list of authors of such works), list of people in alternative medicine, list of designated terrorist organizations, list of Chinese dissidents, list of opponents of slavery, list of feminists, list of animal rights groups, list of anti-consumerists etc. etc. ?? Gandalf61 (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wilhelm, if you have no problem with a category, then why would you have a problem with a category which has been expanded into a List article with references added for context and verifiability, which is essentially what we're trying to achieve here? --Merlinme (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that none of those lists provided contain anything like the quotes that this article does. It's the collection of quotes that makes this article in to WP:POVFORK, because the list of quotes effectively is a (mostly) one-sided discussion of arguments against GW, but without the proper neutral context to counterbalance. The more I discuss, the more I think making this article in to a category is the right solution. Mildly MadTC 15:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i find the list of astrologers rather problematic, since there is no verification that they are categorized correctly, and since astrology is a pseudoscience, there is a large WP:BLP problem with that list (unless of course they are all dead). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mildy Mad: The purpose of citing the other lists was to counter Wilhelm's claim that ""any list of actors on one side of a controversy is necessarily a POVFORK". You are putting forward a quite different argument - one which I think is equally wrong, but for different reasons. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mildly_Mad, we've been trying to explain why it can't be a category; there would be no references or verifiability that someone actually was a sceptic (which is a potentially libellous BLP claim).
As a matter of curiosity, would you be happy if the quotes were placed in references? --Merlinme (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that labeling someone a Holocaust denier is equally (if not more) "dangerous" to BLP--yet there is no "verification" in that category--I'm not sure what makes this any different. But yes, I would favor having quotes in the references over having them in the article text itself. Mildly MadTC 16:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a Category:Global warming skeptics, but CFD in its wisdom decided that this was too big a POV / BLP problem and deleted it. Many of the people that were in there are now tagged with the far less focused Category:Environmental skepticism. Dragons flight (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{
About moving quotes to refs section, I have little faith talking about it will smoke out any counter arguments. We just gotta try it. I have two things to say about the idea.
(A) I can eagerly back this just to end debate and move ahead. So consider me on board (pending my other thing I will say in a moment). HOWEVER, what is the blame difference? Who cares if the info is over here, or the info is over there? If it is in the article main body or the article refs, it is still there. Overnight I realized I do not know the real reason having it in the text is a problem, but having it in the refs is not. Do people think we are hiding it that way, and therefore are minimizing some sort of feared impact on the reader? Is there a policy based reason the quotes are ok in the refs but not in the main text? This solution seems desirable as a way forward, but it is mighty dubious as a matter of intellectual integrity, unless I am missing something.
(B) I am strongly opposed to ending up with just a list of names because that would take away the context Merlinme has been adding, about the venue of the comments. Any resulting list of names should be split into two groups: (A) those who have published their criticisms in the peer-reviewed professional scientific literature, and (B) those who have just made a personal rantpublished their remarks in common media. Failure to do that would give undue weight to the presumed expert opinions that only made it as far as the Op-ed column of one of Murdoch's newspapers, etc. Hopefully keepers and deleters alike realize there is a big difference between some expert publishing something tangible in the professional lit, and one who uses their "expert" credentials to soapbox on a talkshow, etc. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With the quotes included, this article turns in to "here is a list of a bunch of quotes about why GW is wrong", with only minimal neutralizing content (i.e. the very definition of WP:POVFORK), regardless of the intended reason for the quotes being there. Putting the quotes in references, while not ideal, at least shifts the focus of the article to the people, and not their arguments. If you were to read this article unaware of its title, you'd be crazy to say it doesn't have huge POV issues. Mildly MadTC 16:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying makes no sense. WP:POVFORK is about forking content.... Ie. Without already existing content, it cannot be a fork, so it most certainly isn't "the very definition of POVFORK". What you apparently are commenting about is WP:POV content, which is similar, but not the same. POV can be corrected. As for "if you read this article unaware of its title", is a strange comment, since the whole lead is dedicated to the mainstream view, and explaining what is listed. Most articles will fail such a test (reader "ignores" parts and thus comes to a POV conclusion). We can certainly move the quotes to the ref section (its an editorial decision), and/or expand the lead (and section descriptions) to explain the mainstream even more though, but we can't battle willing ignorance. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced putting the quotes in references is a panacea; one reason for this is that I actually think it would make it harder to add context. I imagine all the graphs except the first one would have to go, for example, as their relevance would not be obvious. We have discussed adding further context to the quotes (e.g. giving further details of the mainstream position), however I don't see how this would work with references. I can't off the top of my head think of an example where a reference is given any significant context. However if it would keep the peace then I'd be prepared to give it a go. --Merlinme (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected; WP:POV, not WP:POVFORK (struck above). I'll rephrase: this article as it stands now (with the quotes) could just as easily be titled "Criticism of Global Warming", which, while not explicitly prohibited, does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively in the direction of POV content. I would venture that if the POV problem were corrected, the article would look suspiciously like Global warming controversy, ripe for merging the article. I really do like how Holocaust Denial treats the analogous issue: a subsection mentioning some of the most prominent proponents, and a "see also" link to a category. Mildly MadTC 17:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the CFD for the old "Global warming skeptics" category; I'm not so sure about the category thing anymore. I still stand by my point about the article itself though; a merge in to Global warming controversy seems most appropriate, or at the very least removing the quotes from the article body. Mildly MadTC 17:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wanting to merge is a perfectly reasonable position, but a merge argument is not the same as a delete argument; if you're !voting Delete, on the other hand, then as I understand it you're arguing that the content should be eliminated from the encyclopedia. --Merlinme (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Merging is a valid outcome for AFD; "delete" is not the same as "burn it with fire". Just trying to build a consensus here. Mildly MadTC 18:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had been assuming that you'd !voted Delete, however I've had a quick look and you actually voted Delete and/ or Merge, so ignore me. --Merlinme (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

break as it is difficult to find where to vote by now[edit]

  • Keep to my mind this is a notable topic and notable list - given the weight of the scientific_consensus on global warming the fact that a very small minority of scientists oppose this is relevant and the detail of who and why is notable and interesting. To step back from detailed policy, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and it is a reasonable to follow the thought "a very few scientists deny the onsesnus on climate change" with thinking "well who are they and why do they think that?" . Babakathy (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - about 1% of climate scientists "oppose the mainstream scientific assessment". Their positions are widely reported on, I do not see why this list should be so contentious as long as the individual statements within it are clearly verified. --He to Hecuba (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Keep I would support keeping this list - it would be of benefit in helping people to see the different viewpoints scientists have on issues, and would also help people to see a list of scientists whose views could be regarded as different to the mainstream. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as before, and per WMC above. Is 5 AfDs a new record? This is kind of ridiculous, going through this every few months. -- 00:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC) User:Tillman (signature added by User:Merlinme)
At our present rate we may surpass the record, which is at least 22. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America_(22nd_nomination) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete intrinsic to the process of the scientific method is to always question the data and conclusions. If it does not stand up to scrutiny then it will in time be discarded. The problem with the article is that it is applying an undue weight to those that are QUESTIONING the data and conclusions i.e. in the end they are only doing their job as scientists. Now they may have an ulterior motive beyond being pig-headed about the accuracy of the data but this is no reason to cast them as heretics. Science is not dogma. This article is a denunciation not a list giving undue weight to a minority voice. Fromthehill (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to my delete it is funny how the delete nomination at the top of this page has links for "news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images" but each of those is either empty set or... links to this Wikipedia article. This sounds like Wikipedia is acting as the primary source. So my solution is to make sure that each persons' article has the bits in here and then just create a category of Climate science sceptic or whatever makes people happy. That's why we have Categories isn't it ? Fromthehill (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the discussion above about why the Category was deleted? The problem with a category is that it's not directly referenced, making it significantly harder to verify if someone belongs in that category. This is a real BLP problem, especially if you view this as a "denunciation" list as you seem to be saying. I don't view it in those terms- there are some highly respected if somewhat maverick scientists in the list- but the fact remains that this is a sensitive BLP area and referencing and verifiability are important. --Merlinme (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the POVFORK argument is not compelling. On the other hand, the list is sourced, passes notability, and passes WP:STAND. – Lionel (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:Mike Rosoft under criteria A10, as a duplicate of the Drew Brees article. non-admin closure. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drew brees to the cowboys[edit]

Drew brees to the cowboys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable "social media" movement to get an NFL player to switch teams (which all too often means that it is what one or two people are trying to throw together on Reddit or Facebook). Even such a campaign, unless sustained and high-profile in its own right, would be insufficient for an article. However, the use of the future tense, etc. add to my suspicion that this is something that doesn't "really" exist. I can't find any serious speculation about such a campaign, either. At the very least, we have WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTAL here as well as a general WP:GNG failure.

I've declined to PROD because my experience with articles such as this is that the author is likely to object almost as a matter of course, and this doesn't quite come across as CSD material (i.e. a hoax)). Tyrenon (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...ok, withdraw this. Someone else beat me to the punch.Tyrenon (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Article has substantially improved since being nominated. The early comments for delete were based on lack of sources - these have now been found. While the actual voting is even, pointing to no consensus, the improvements in the article, and the direction of the discussion point to a keep SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Killing Season (film)[edit]

Killing Season (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is WP:TOOSOON for this film to have an article. BOVINEBOY2008 20:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:TOOSOON for a separate article. Possibly incorporate a mention into the director's page as an "upcoming project" if it starts to get actual news coverage.Tyrenon (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Only add a mention to the director's page if a reliable source can be found for it. SL93 (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per WP:GNG The film is in production in Atlanta, GA and there are multiple news articles verifying the existence of this film. External link has been provided as well. Coutrystrong (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per policy on furure events and meeting WP:GNG and thus passing WP:NFF. Considering the coverage surrounding the film and its principles, this one is a close call... and could be seen as one of those allowable exceptions to WP:NFF. Or perhaps as a weak second choice, Redirect for a short while to Mark Steven Johnson where per policy this film can be spoken of and sourced in contect to that director's career. If redirected, we can undo the redirect when we have just a little more. Its a close call. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not even scheduled for release for more than two years. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, we do have options other than an outright deletion, in that policy allows that a topic of an anticipated event may be written of if properly cited and if not involving unsourced speculation, original research, or opinion... and even if not seen as meritng a separate article though persistant and enduring coverage, such topics might still be discussed in context somewhere. Do you feel that this policy is incorrect? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would not object to a redirect to the director, except for the fact that I just removed a large amount of text from his article about films which he was scheduled to make which never came to fruition. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • As long as they have sources, guideline allows that even failed projects might be spoken of in the director's artcle (where we would naturally require verifiability of even his failed attempts, if not actual completion)... which could then be included perhaps in a section about just such uncompleted projects. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect. Since filming has begun the sources look like enough to me to support an independent article. But if others think not this is surely worth a brief mention in the directors article and a redirect makes sense. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Article can be re-created if in due course additional episodes mean it achieves notability. JohnCD (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7 Secrets[edit]

7 Secrets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has only one source and not enough to provide it. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 20:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There were only four episodes of this, and I can find no reliable sources; the show seems far from notable. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There seem to be additional episodes in production for this summer - and that might result in coverage. If there was little said about the show during its last run, then we probably don't have enough for an article - yet. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N as of right now. SaveATreeEatAVegan 09:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural probe[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cultural probe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Last AFD speedy closed in good faith. The nominator saw a prod, and decided to send to AFD for further discussion even though he himself wanted it kept. I want this deleted, though, as it's a mere dicdef with minimal sourcing, and I don't see it ever being more than a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - brief though it is, there are plenty of sources about it, suggesting it may be a notable concept. (e.g. [14], [15], [16]) I'd say this is slightly more than a dictionary definition, although I'd prefer if there was somewhere we could merge it. Robofish (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article on a notable topic contains the most essential information in the mean time, in stub form, until the article is grown upon. No problem there.--Coin945 (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article has potential since reliable sourcing exists. I added one citation. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saumen Kar[edit]

Saumen Kar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is very difficult to find evidence for this which does not originate on Wikipedia, facebook, or blogspot. In October 2011 the article was completely unsourced, so I searched for references. The vast majority of the mentions that I found were copied from this Wikipedia article. I therefore proposed deletion (PROD). The author of the article then proceeded to remove the PROD without explanation. All of the "references" that have been added to the article have either been copies from Wikipedia, blogs, or sources that don't even mention Saumen Kar. (For example, the Asuilaak Living Dictionary doesn't mention it, despite being cited twice in the article.) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After my search, I'd have to completely agree with the nominator. The only real article I could find outside of mirrors or blogs was this one that is undated, uncredited, and looks completely generic. Unless someone can point out some better references, I'm chalking this one up as a WP:HOAX. SaveATreeEatAVegan 10:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. per WP:V: Given sources does not appear to support article and no other sources presented during discussion. No prejudice towards recreation if a sufficiently sourced article can be created. henrik•talk 10:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dal Khor[edit]

Dal Khor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable WP: NEOLOGISM Neither of the sources in the article actually have the phrase in them, A search on Gbooks shows only one source which uses the term and does not describe it as a "Persian term pejoratively referring to Indians, Pakistanis or other groups from the Indian subcontinent." Darkness Shines (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I've read and verified the topic from both books cited in the article. The term is not a newly induced term and is said to be well known in academic work. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone else care to verify? [17][18] The term Dal Khor does not appear in a search of either book. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unfortunately a very common pejorative. I think the article could be sourced, but the sources in the article don't appear to use the word. What is this with the words sourced to references that don't have them? It might be better moved to wiktionary until sources are found. I'm not going to spend any time editing this article or fighting to keep it. Pseudofusulina (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I did verify this and the sources in the article do speak about the term. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You were also asked to provide full quotes from the sources, you have yet to do so. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The page numbers are provided in the sources, you can read from google books. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have searched both and the term appears in neither, please provide full quotes to that it can be seen that the sources do in fact support the content. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The pages needed are available for preview, strange that you don't seem to find it in search. I can not copy the quotes because of copying restriction, and don't plan of typing it all here. You need to actually read to verify than just searching it around. There can be nothing more specific than the page number itself. [19] [20]. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The pages are not available for preview in the UK Germany Spain Turkey or America. Please provide full quotes from the books so that we can verify that there are no OR going on. It is not a copyright issue to make a full quote of the passages in question. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well then you really really need to read WP:SOURCEACCESS because I've verified this. Complete information about the citation is available and you are not the only editor who can verify this. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually this is a widely used term, especially among Afghans, to refer to South Asians (Pakistanis in particular). It's a bit like the Sardarji jokes phenomenon, which are used sometimes in the racist/pejorative sense or in a funny context. Mar4d (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer The only person who says he has verified the sources has refused point blank to quote the passages in question which he says supports the content in the article. Given his refusal to abide by policy and supply full quotes when asked to do so leads me to the conclusion there are WP:OR issues here. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how you claim every thing on policy. The policy is availability of citations which are available with page numbers. There's nothing more specific than that. I'm not going to type the full quote in here to satisfy the only editor requiring those. Editors are free to read the given page numbers which are about the term. I even linked the opened pages in the search links I gave for last time. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why these did not show up the first time I looked, but I have roaming access via Mexican and US IPs, and I was able to see one of the quotes, "Rural Punjabis ... consumed dal-roti, dal-chawal and got nicknamed dal khor." Maybe google books does restrict countries.
There is no restriction on en.wiki to providing a quote about what a book says; my example above is helpful to the editor questioning the source (as I did) and does not violate copyright. There is also no requirement that sources be available on the web. Darkness Shines, I've provided you with a partial quote from one of the sources. I think, on this basis, both sources can stay. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Pseudofusulina, there's software restriction in the preview on copying the text from the book, but the way DS demanded the quotes was no way to get a courtesy quotation from the book. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't think of that. Yes, it's impossible for me to quote from texts in Kannada or anything, so I would have to copy and paste, but I cannot. I did not quite understand that. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, now the question is does this one source support this Dal Khor (Persian for "Dal eater" or "one who eats Dal") is a Persian term pejoratively referring to Indians, Pakistanis or other groups from the Indian subcontinent. The term has been used in various contexts and has even found its way to literature pertaining to Pakistan and India.[1] Pakistanis, notably Punjabis residing in the countryside, are more often given the nickname due to the popularity of vegetarianism and lack of meat in rural areas.[2] The term is commonly used by Persian-speakers throughout Iran and Afghanistan. I would say, no. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to quote the entire article here. It does require improved references, please feel free to revert my tag removal. However, this is AfD, not an article improvement drive. Please withdraw this AfD. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No as it is still a non notable WP:NEO. If you can provide more reference I will withdraw it (I have looked for others) The quote you gave above means the article can currently read as "Dal Khor is a nickname given to Rural Punjabi vegetarians" Darkness Shines (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just point out that Neologism is a term for new words, not old words.. and this is certainly old per the source. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google appears to have changed things again, I can now see the page in question. It is actually the short story The train has reached Amritsar And I can say with all certainty that it does not support the content in the article. It does not say the term is a pejorative. It does not say it is used in reference to Indians, Pakistanis or other groups from the Indian subcontinent. I have taken a screenshot of the passage and will upload to imageshack for anyone who wishes to see it. Those with JSTOR access can view it Here. The entire article is WP:OR. And per WP:NEO To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term Article fails on every count. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what's wrong with your search engine, but it was showing here all the time. This is not a "story" as you say. It does however include narration of a real incident in an independent academic work referring to the term as being used by Pushtun, for Pujabis at the time of independence (that directly strikes out WP:NEO). Don't think Afd is appropriate here. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Presumed baiting
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Whatever makes you think it is not a short story? The Penguin book of modern Indian short stories Penguin Books, 2001 - Fiction p240 [22]"As the old soldier in Bhisham Sahni's short story 'The Train has Reached Amritsar' asks," Liberty or death: India's journey to independence and division p351 Darkness Shines (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC) The term Dal Khor may not be notable, but this short story certainly is so I shall create an article on it. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stop baiting TopGun. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not baiting him, I was serious The train has reached Amritsar. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't see how DS was baiting TG here. He was purely keeping on topic. Shall he now impose a one week block on himself because TopGun was blocked? TG is free to answer anytime he returns to this talk. JCAla (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm still a bit skeptical here. User:TopGun, are there other references to be found that can support the article's claims? I don't disagree with you that the term exists, but the nominator does make a rather valid point that we need some more reliable secondary sources here to avoid the WP:OR claim. SaveATreeEatAVegan 10:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doejo[edit]

Doejo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested proposed deletion, not mine. Another privately owned digital services agency (i.e. an Internet advertising agency) advertising on Wikipedia. Offered sources are startup-related local coverage or business and trade blogs. I find nothing better. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article was created by an editor who also created an article about its founder, Phil Tadros, which was deleted and recreated several times. The same editor deleted a "notability" tag from the article on spurious grounds.[23] It's apparent that the editor is closely connected to the company and its founder. As for the company itself, there's only a single passing mention of it in the Proquest newspaper archive. Of the sources used in the article, most are about Tadros with just passing mentions of Doejo. The only one specifically about the company is an interview hosted on what seems to be a consulting firm's website,[24] which wouldn't normally be considered a reliable source. Based on that, the company does not appear to meet the notability guideline: WP:CORP.  Will Beback  talk  19:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no evidence that this is a company with any significant notability. It's biggest claim to notability seems to be that it has worked for some notable companies. However, this does not make Doejo itself notable and, without any reliable sources, I see no scope for keeping the article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Company fails notability at WP:COMPANY. SaveATreeEatAVegan 10:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pittura Di Strati[edit]

Pittura Di Strati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a notable... err... practice. No hits at all for "Pittura Di Strati" except for this article. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree. I previously prodded it for failing WP:GNG and WP:RS and nothing has happened to change my mind. andy (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Problems with original research, notability, and reliable sources. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Total lack of WP:RS or any kind of reference to attest to notability. AllyD (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 17:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zoran Ducić[edit]

Zoran Ducić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability for assoc. football players - played for a team in the fourth tier of Serbian football, and does not appear to have international call ups. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vulcano (band)[edit]

Vulcano (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:BAND. I'm not finding significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Only reference provided is to a fan written biography posted in AllMusic. Contested prod RadioFan (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Passes WP:MUSIC. The Allmusic biog is described as "fan-written", but is cited as written by Eduardo Rivadavia, one of the most prolific Allmusic heavy metal contributors, and an easy WP:RS pass. The biog contains a claim to notability in the description of Vulcano as "one of Brazil's first heavy metal bands of note" and "having no small influence upon" Sepultura. They pass WP:MUSIC #6 with multiple releases on the notable indie Cogumelo Records (see Metal Archives for discography here). In terms of print media, I found non-trivial coverage in Terrorizer 's Secret History of Black Metal (September 2009); there's a whole section on the band on page 17, focussing on the South American scene, which contains the quote: "Many believe that Vulcano not only kick-started musical blasphemy in Brazil, but throughout most of Latin America". I imagine there are more out there, but that's certainly enough to justify inclusion. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that Terrorizer ref can be cited in the article in a WP:V way, I'll consider withdrawing this AFD.--RadioFan (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. 20:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reliable, significant coverage (calling the Allmusic source a fan written biography is ridiculous and I can confirm the coverage in Terrorizer), historical importance in Brazillian metal music, 2 albums on Rock Brigade which appears to fulfill criterion 6 of WP:BAND. --Michig (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Tea Party (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)[edit]

Mad Tea Party (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable as a stand alone article. Redirecting didn't make sense considering it is unlikely someone would land here accidentally. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I agree that the disambiguous page should be deleted as well.Rorshacma (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Hatter. This is the correct title of a very notable episode in the book though I have always known it referred to as the Mad Hatter's Tea Party. However since the topic is covered in detail in another article there is no need for both (though I would not argue too hard with somebody who argued that this should be the proper title since the Hatter is not really notable outside this episode which is known for much more than one character eg this 2011 Guardian headline). --AJHingston (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would say merge, but there's no real content here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have changed the disambiguation page into a real disambiguation page (instead of a stub article as it was before). However, per WP:TWODABS, even if this article is kept, we don't strictly need the disambiguation page; deleting it would be fine. Powers T 15:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and redirect to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland until it's fleshed out more. It's here in Chapter 7 of the classic children's story that we meet the March Hare, the Hatter, and a sleeping Dormouse (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland). --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alice's Mad Tea Party is a significant literary motif often commented upon, referenced, and parodied in other literature. (Have a look at the 1,000 or so GScholar hits[25] and 6,000 or so GBooks hits[26] for examples.) It certainly could be the subject of a good Wikipedia article. As yet, however, I find no real discussion of this in Wikipedia, so I am fine with redirecting to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland unless and until such time as there's more. However, I think there's something just a bit screwy about the notion that when someone searches for "Mad Tea Party" they get taken directly to the Disney ride without any clear direction to the Alice discussion. I note that the disambiguation page has already disappeared; while I understand that as a matter of Wiki-Dab rules, I am not sure this is the best result for the reader, and I hope that a satisfactory hatnote or other disambiguation methodology is maintained here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I put a hatnote on the ride article; is that not sufficient? Powers T 14:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at this time for lack of content. This topic should be evolved with realiable sources in of the suggested main articles per above, and only then become a stand-alone article when WP:SIZE calls for it. – sgeureka t•c 09:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not because it isn't notable, but because it lacks sufficient content to support its own article presently. I also agree with nom, redirect is unnecessary. SaveATreeEatAVegan 09:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pomsky[edit]

Pomsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not finding reliable sources for this unofficial cross breed. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ([[User talk:)
  • Delete - While it is easy to decipher that the breed being referred to is a Pomeranian-Husky mix, the only pages that really exist on this cross-breed are pictures with no notable references or history. SaveATreeEatAVegan 10:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. henrik•talk 20:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erkin Musaev[edit]

Erkin Musaev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable biography. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pols in Ahmedabad[edit]

List of Pols in Ahmedabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Pols of Ahmadabad are not only notable but they have historical value. Have a look Pols have much to teach new Ahmedabad and this also Ahmedabad heritage set to conquer Spain. I would further request that this list is incomplete so if anyone has anymore info please complete the list. I have posted the same comment on article's talk page.--Vyom25 (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are many articles available which discuss the pols of Ahmedabad. However, not all of them are notable by themselves. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmm. Having a list of places is perfectly reasonable - see eg/ Neighbourhoods of Delhi - regardless of the notability of individual members of the set. Shimgray | talk | 19:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the individual Pols may not satisfy WP:N, the list can help index those that do satisfy it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. henrik•talk 20:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DST Global[edit]

DST Global (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. New company, sourced by blogs and press releases. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. as a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Him Ganga Hum[edit]

Him Ganga Hum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable documentary. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's no question that the documentary exists, however it fails WP:N to support any inclusion in our project. SaveATreeEatAVegan 10:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. For the record, "Far too short needs expanding" is not an argument to delete an article at all and was therefore not considered when closing. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muther Grumble[edit]

Muther Grumble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced and non-notable newspaper Osarius Talk 17:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO

  • It is not unreferenced as there is a link to the archive.
  • It is notable as it exposed a major corruption case (Poulson) TobyJ (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The reference provided alone carries zero weight for notability - it has to be other people writing about you, not just your own website. Neither does association with a news event in most cases. However, I've had a look on Google Books and I think there's just about enough coverage there to scrape the bar. You're lucky you caught me in a good mood. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 16:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At best a Weak Keep -- Even the claim as to "breaking" the Poulson/T. Dan Smith corruption story (a significant scandal of the period) seems overrated, since Muther Grumble alludes to the story being in Private Eye. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Rolex. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Wilsdorf Foundation[edit]

Hans Wilsdorf Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not expplaining the significance or refrence  Sabeel Hussain  talk 15:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 16:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus for deletion. The article has improved since nomination, and there are sources in the article and available though not yet in the article to assert notability. Defaulting to keep. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catalyst Arts[edit]

Catalyst Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the organisation is doubtless laudable the article has been uncited since creation and flagged as such for almost a year. The article is a promotional essay and a link farm to the directors. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Whilst a hunt through the Google news archive reveals LOTSOFSOURCES, I can't find anything that's not either listings info, a quote from someone associated with the project, or a passing mention. No in-depth coverage, so fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment sufficient mentions in reliable sources that are incorporated into the article as citations would save the article, I think. It is the reliability of the sources that contain the mentions that at least asserts verifiability. Notability is, of course, the other side of the pancake. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for just now. A long-standing organisation well known in its field, but I recognise the article sorely lacks refs. Google Books turns up various more solid refs though frustratingly mainly in snippet view. Catalyst is mentioned among "influential groups" (Grant Kester, “Conversation Pieces: Community and Communication in Modern Art"), as a notable surviver (Flash Art in 2001), as "exciting" ((World Literature today, 2007), and among "Notable independent, artist-run spaces" (Manifesta 2: European Biennial for Contemporary Art, Luxembourg). It has a paragraph in Belfast in Your Pocket and is discussed in Variant magazine. AllyD (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment including the things that you find in the article to assert and verify its notability (assuming what you have found can do that) would be a beneficial outcome, please. My view is that the article as it stands at present is inappropriate here, hence the nomination. A good outcome of this process would be the saving of the article by relevant work. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...I see you have made a start :) There is much to do though, yet. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend not to use snippet views for refs as you don't see enough context; so the above is more a plea for anyone who does have access to these books to check them and add if appropriate. As you saw, I've added a few refs but they fall short of what's needed. AllyD (talk) 08:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 16:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article itself has been much improved. However I am still struggling to find true notability and thus to verify that from reliable sources. A reference to a 1997 piece speaks of a 'three artist' place, which, unless they are Damien Hirst, Tracey Emin, and David Hockney, does not help its cause. though it has, surely, to have increased in size since then. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No assertion of notability. This could be an A7. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parc Place Systems[edit]

Parc Place Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article appears to be a non-notable defunct software company. Although it was a spinoff of a notable company, notability is not inherent. This particular organization lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for companies. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is just a timeline. Nothing else. Entire article lacks inline citations. Requires a lot of cleanup or just throw it out entirely. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 16:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ParcPlace was a notable company for a number of reasons; (1) SmallTalk is the direct precursor to Objective-C; (2) With Apple re-popularizing Objective-C via iOS there has been a resurgence of interest in SmallTalk. (3) The history of ParcPlace is interesting because, had it not been for Java ( another decedent of SmallTalk ) we'd probably all be programming in SmallTalk today ( as an alternative to C ). For the reasons, if someone is willing to do some more research on the company, I think it could make a useful and interesting article for the wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexHorovitz (talk • contribs) 20:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  06:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fact sheet on India[edit]

Fact sheet on India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No other country has corresponding page as information should be included within main country article if relevant. Reichsfurst (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't understand the policy grounds for this deletion request. The page seems to be validly encyclopedic, or at least almanac, information; it doesn't obviously belong on some other project, and the facts are verifiable. It may be that this page is simply the first instance of a type of page that could be profitably added to each country as soon as someone gets bothered to do it. As Lord Featherstonehaugh-Fanshawe wrote in The Great Western Railway Co. v. Haddock, "there is no precedent for anything until it has been done for the first time." - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

Simply because no other country has corresponding page is not a sufficient reason to decide what content must be compiled and which pages are appropriate on wikipedia.

The reasons proposed for deletion are not listed as wiki's guiding reasons for deletion. Instead of deleting this, I encourage that such pages be created for all countries.

FWIW, tabular fact sheet pages of the kind similar to Fact sheet on India are all over wikipedia, many highly viewed per day. See these for example:

etc.

Finally, I submit for matter of record that Reichsfurst originally marked the article for deletion with the following claim: "Information contained in article on India - merge would be unnecessary. This seems to basically be information copied from another site."

The proposal and reasons for deletion above, submitted on 16:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC) by Reichsfurst, have not answered my humble question to Reichsfurst. I asked the wiki contributor - "please identify where this information is available, and which site is it copied from?" I have yet to get an answer from Reichsfurst. If an answer is provided, and it is persuasive, I will happily reconsider my position. Thank you. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In line with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion please note that ApostleVonColorado is the page's creator, which he has not made clear in his above comment. Reichsfurst (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite the above user's filibuster, I'm not convinced. This article presents nothing that isn't already in India or any of the related articles. "Fact sheets" are just plain not how we do things around here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just re-read the article on India. Most category metrics of Fact sheet on India are not mentioned. A few that are, do not have the relative basis - that is how many countries is the ranking based on. Being 39th of 40 countries is contextually different than being 39th of 212 countries. Adding relative basis info into India, or merging all the current or future category metrics into wiki article on India may not be appropriate. I am not convinced that economic metrics such as 'Total reserves (includes gold, current US$)' belongs inside a general article such as India. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One thing that's a bit troubling about this article leans almost exclusively on the World Bank's data, a fair bit of which seems estimated or subjective. The article almost seems like it should be titled 'The World Bank's development indicators for India'. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, 60% of the stats are from world bank database, 40% elsewhere. Please note alternate independent sources of data for various categories exist, e.g. IMF, UNICEF, WHO, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, etc databases. Please see WP:VNT - the guideline I followed. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really just want to stress that this isn't about criticising the work which you have done AVC, I'm just not sure that this is the place to display it and the information it contains or a reference to the data could be inserted elsewhere. Reichsfurst (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate all the comments, as well as reasoned arguments that go with "keep" or "delete." Note that the article was created less than 24 hours ago. My intent was to add sufficient explanatory text, and some context, to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. For example, not just rank with basis, but how the metric compares with the best in the world, the world average, etc.; plus, what each metric means in a context that the general reader can appreciate. I envision future wiki editors will add more tables and update these tables not only for India vis a vis the world, but also for each state/region/territory within the country - again, with context for the general reader. I feel tables enhance readability of statistical data lists; this when presented with context is validly encyclopedic. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I simply dont understand why this has been nominated on which wikipedia policy? If there is no similar article for other country doesnt mean this one also to be deleted. KuwarOnline Talk 07:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - There is nothing in the article that is against Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please don't waste our time. Tinpisa (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - fairly informative article, fulfilling all criteria to be on wikipedia, its a fact sheet not advertisemet. we should try to create one for other countries like china, us and uk too. Whileships savedhead (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated Comment: Nwlaw63 commented, "one thing that's a bit troubling about this article leans almost exclusively on the World Bank's data." I already clarified that only about 60% of the data was from the World Bank databases, rest elsewhere. As I dig deeper and add text describing the meaning of each metric, I am finding that the World Bank database is actually a compilation of numerous independent databases collected by multinational teams across the world. For example, while The World Bank stores the data on electricity produced by each country in its databases, the ultimate source of the data is International Energy Agency team in Vienna. Similarly, many other data is sourced from independent team of experts in different parts of the world. In summary, the data in the table is from diverse reputable sources. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 04:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reasons for keeping: As the creator of this page, I submit reasons in addition to the above, as to why this article be kept and extended to other countries beyond India. The page meets all WP:GNG guidelines. It has significant coverage, is a subject covered in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Reliable sources, each reputable and secondary sources, allow verifiable evaluation. Citations are already in the article, that anyone can use to verify. I already discussed above that multiple reputable sources are available. I, the creator of this page, is not the source, nor affiliated with World Bank, IMF, IEA, EU Commission, United States' EIA, WSJ, Financial Times, UNESCO, etc; thereby this page meets wiki's independent of the subject guideline. The sources compile this data on a routine basis, many every year, implying significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources, such as international newspapers discuss such data routinely, and teams across the world collect and publish this data in secondary sources, thus meeting the presumed guideline.

In summary, the article meets every guideline specified by wikipedia's WP:GNG for inclusion. I also note, that neither the original proposal to delete this article nor one subsequent comment has, yet, identified any specific guideline from wiki's guidelines for deletion that suggest that the article should be deleted. I await further comments, and intend to use the comments to help improve the article. Meanwhile, I plan to continue to improve and add content to the article, to the best of my ability and when I find free time. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continued reasons for deleting - The deletion policy states that a page should be deleted on the grounds of: 'Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia'. A brief read of the definition or glance at any existing encyclopaedia (including this one) will quickly show that they contain article's not tables of data. If they were to pursue such a policy separated from the main article to which they refer then we would end up with hundreds of additional pages of 'data' devoid of direct relevance - think pages devoted to tables of 'Chelsea football club's stats for 2011-12' or 'Harry Potter sales by continent by year', the resultant information when in separation from the main article cannot and does not qualify its own notability. As such I would go so far as to argue that this page represents a content fork, another grounds for deletion. Please also see [27] - which states that wikipedia should not contain Excessive listings of statistics. Thank you. Reichsfurst (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on continued reasons: The section Reichsfurst cites, clarifies that articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where statistics are necessary, wiki guidelines urge that we consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. The article Fact sheet on India does provide explanatory text, as well use table instead of indiscriminate excessive statistics. Wikipedia policy gives an example, Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008, to explain this guideline. The new article meets this guideline, and is similar to Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008. I have looked at wikipedia, and numerous wiki articles include tables, and the table is almost the entire content of many. For example, see links I provided in my comment above on February 8 2012. Even Britannica has article with and primarily of tables, see Britannica's article on electoral college results of U.S. presidential elections.
The claim that the article is content forking is unsupported, just like original claim of user Reichsfurst: This seems to basically be information copied from another site. I requested support for later a week ago. Reichsfurst has not provided the support. I request that support be provided for both these claims.
Please note that wiki defines content forking as the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Wikipedia also explains that there is a difference between unacceptable content forking and when we must create separate articles on related topic (see Content forking#Acceptable types of forking and WP:SS. I request Reichsfurst to identify which wiki article provides relative ranking and explanation of metric, for metrics on the page Fact sheet on India. Thank you, ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Metric Explanation Global Ranking Notes/References
Number of known terrorist organisations present Terrorist groups as defined by Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f, laid out in the Department of State's annual report to Congress on global terrorism. 4th as of 2005 [9]

Does the fact that a user requesting deletion starts adding content to make it more useful, suggest that the article is worth keeping and could be made useful in an encyclopedic context? Thank you, ApostleVonColorado (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus to delete. Comments at this AfD as split between those who view his resume as typical and the sources as insufficient and those who claim that as a general officer he is automatically notable. Claims of automatic notability, especially those based on essays are not to be given much weight. But there are enough sources to make the article minimally verifiable. Given the tenor of the discussion I cannot find a consensus to delete based on the apparently widely held opinion that typical brigadier generals are notable. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A. Ryan[edit]

Michael A. Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to be a military individual of highly notable accomplishments. Article is basically his resume. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Incomplete nomination: article has not been tagged with AfD message. Dru of Id (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added to article. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I dunno, it's certainly an impressive Resume. Brigadier General, Bronze Star, and all that. Are there any sources to be had? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should be noted that it would be uncommon in the U.S. military for someone to reach a general officer rank without being awarded a Bronze Star at some point because of an institutional tendency to align the prestige of awards with rank held during an assignment. Note the Bronze Star may be awarded solely for "meritorious service" in peacetime. The article does not indicate any particularly notable achievements during his career other than reaching the rank of brigadier general. Doesn't appear to have had any commands during wartime and holds no apparent awards for valor in combat. This is why I question the notability of the subject of this article. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The US Army's official site turns up exactly one photo of him. Not much in the news except minor announcements and offering of condolences.[28][29] Clarityfiend (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, and per the above. Though the subject is retired, WP:USUAL still applies I think - if he does something notable or some notable operation comes to light, an article might be appropriate. At present, with the lack of available sources and the lack of obviously notable achievements (though with thanks for his service, I imagine), I'd have to recommend delete. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep, per WP:SOLDIER. I have found several passing mentions of him, but nothing that appears to fall under WP:INDEPTH. That being said, there are as many links to said search to a Dr. Ryan who practices general dentistry.
As for the image comment made by another editor above, I have found several images of him, especially as his roll in the chain of command in V Corps. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:SOLDIER is an essay, not a guideline. And when I said I found only a photo, I meant there were no articles about or by him. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. henrik•talk 15:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hyde Park Junior School[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hyde Park Junior School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

School's only claim to notability is that it is over 100 years. It has some history, but so would any organisation that old. That does not confer notability. Bob Re-born (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.

Emphasis added. To say that a hundred year old school doesn't met this is awfully arbitrary. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 18:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Mutley Plain. History section has some useful info. As per ORG, definitely no referenced impact on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Fmph (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that a school has no impact on education? You've also just admitted that there is some useful information in history, so... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 21:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No referenced impact. Prove me wrong. Fmph (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does a school need a reference to say that it has an impact on education? It's like saying that the phrase "the sky appears to be blue" needs a reference at Sky. You're also rewriting WP:ORG to add in that "referenced" bit. So I'm not playing into your Strawman, sorry.
In any case WP:NRVE: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." After hundred-plus years of operation - history and education, per my above quoted section from WP:ORG. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 21:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and what exactly makes you think that I didn't consider that? Wouldn't you be better off finding these phantom references snd proving me wrong? Fmph (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redirect or delete: "Old" doesn't mean "historic", and "historic" doesn't mean "notable". My house turns 100 this year; it's probably historic but certainly ain't notable. The general consensus is to toss school-related articles, and I see no reason to deviate from the general consensus Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This is a historic school whose notably is already proven through multiple reliable sources. It makes no sense to merge it with the locality article. Dahliarose (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not only a historic school but the sources meet WP:ORG in any case. TerriersFan (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a summary to Mutley Plain, where it is. The accepoted WP view is that Primary Schools are NN. I take the view that they are best merged to the place where they are, rather than being deleted out of hand. Education became compulsory in the 1870s. Accordingly, a school a century old is northing execptional. Its assocation with Drake is minimal: that would be better dealt with in an article on the neighourhood. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is far too long to be merged. Primary schools are a recent innovation and for most of its history this school has served the entire community who were eligible for education, therefore effectively making it equivalent to a secondary school today. Dahliarose (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The work done by Smalljim (talk · contribs) has transformed this article from being about a small non-notable primary school to a school, formerly educating much older children, with a significant and notable history. On that basis I am quite happy to change my vote to keep - even though I was the person who nominated it for deletion. --Bob Re-born (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. (e.c.) Thanks, Bob. I was going to say that I've expanded the article and added several new reference sources to help show that this school has much greater notability than that of an average junior school and that the delete/merge opinions above need to be reconsidered in the light of these new sources. But perhaps I don't need to, now :)  —SMALLJIM  17:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gospo-Fella Entertainment[edit]

Gospo-Fella Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This company does not appear to be notable per WP:MUSIC or WP:CORP. Only claim of notability is that its compilation CD was nominated for awards from an organization that itself doesn't appear notable. Lacks reliable sources per WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The Rhythm of Gospel Awards are notable within the gospel genre. Tyler3lizabeth

  • Delete per nomination, notability per guidelines not demonstrated ukexpat (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, notability per guidelines not demonstrated Sven Manguard Wha? 04:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GEMS Education[edit]

GEMS Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't assert notability with reliable sources, and utilizes peacock words incessantly. Also see this AfD. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 15:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag for references. There appear to be at least a few WP:RS in a quick news and books search. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a global school organisation. We already have many articles for school districts in America. This is on a much larger scale and will provide a parent page for all the schools run by this organisation that don't qualify for a page in their own right. Dahliarose (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to GEMS Education. JohnCD (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GEMS Wellington Primary School[edit]

GEMS Wellington Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary school. Review of gbooks and gnews fails to turn up notable, substantial, non-passing, multiple, independent RS coverage. Convention with such schools is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since no refs have been provided to show it satisfies WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge/redirect to the locality or otherwise as we normally do. No argument against a redirect has been given, for the very good reason that there really is no rational argument that could be given. Epeefleche, I respect and agree with your efforts to remove from the encyclopedia standalone articles like this one, but why do not you simply redirect? The consensus would support you. Just be BOLD about it. DGG ( talk ) 08:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the key is that these should not be standalone articles. But there are a few editors who tend to vociferously disagree with me, in instances I thought were quite clear. Any reader of these AfDs has seen that. Also, despite your views, there is not a clear consensus that when articles such as this lose their stand-alone status, they should be redirected (rather than deleted). Some prefer deletion, and in fact consensus is for deletion not uncommonly. Also -- some editors, even when the article is completely uncited and challenged -- ignore the need for inline citations and !vote for merges. I think they are wrong, but they think otherwise perhaps. Given all the uncertainty, I don't choose to be Bold. I think it better in this case to allow editor input here, and have a consensus result, rather than foist my view on others.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A review of the sources indicates that they are adequate for our purposes and that the school is excellent, being in the top 10 schools in that country. Warden (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 15:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per longstanding consensus for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. If there's a good redirect target, that would also be a swell outcome from my perspective. Carrite (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect the Primary school is actually integrated in the same school as the secondary school and there probably should be either a merged article on GEMS Wellington School or a redirect to the GEMS article as they are the largest provider of for-profitprovate education in Dubai, if not the UAE. Spartaz Humbug! 04:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - To GEMS Education. Although that target is also an AfD candidate, it is the best target available. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to GEMS Education. JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GEMS Jumeirah Primary School[edit]

GEMS Jumeirah Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary school through year 6. Review of gbooks and gnews fails to turn up substantial, non-passing, multiple, independent RS coverage. Convention with such schools is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG, the relevant notability guideline. Edison (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect of course, as usual. No reason for deletion without a redirect is given, or could be given. This should have been done without coming here. DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An outstanding school which is covered as such in numerous sources. Warden (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 15:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per longstanding consensus for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. Redirect if a target can be found. Per the esteemed Colonel above, I am pleased to learn that there are international equivalents of the bogus 'Blue Ribbon School" designation that is wheeled out in defense of selected ordinary American schools from time to time. I don't think such bureaucratic ratings should come into play here either, but at least such a line of argument isn't US-centric, I'm happy to learn... I think we need an RFC to either confirm or deny the "Rule of Thumb" of presumed notability of high schools and presumed non-notability of elementary schools. Some people say there's no such thing — but you can't see air, yet it exists, too. I'm comfortable that this well-established consensus will be confirmed by the community. Things are starting to slide into "Lets Do Notability Testing for Everything" country at AfD though, views expressed both by Inclusionists and Deletionists... This defeats the purpose of having a rule of thumb, which is a time saving device that splits the difference between those wanting an expansive and those wanting a focused encyclopedia. But hey, if people really would rather have drama and time-draining fights over everything to the last ditch, who am I to argue... Carrite (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the notion that either an RfC or a revision to the notability guideline would be helpful to streamline discussion. Some editors including some sysops take strong positions as to what the consensus is, but I've not noticed sysops closing these AfDs as SNOWs on that basis. Either an RfC or -- better yet -- a guideline revision would seem to be in order. Ping me please if someone starts either.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI agree that there needs to be some sort of definitive statement either affirming the longstanding consensus or creating a brave new world in which thousands of school articles are weighed for sources. The latter outcome would be a logistical catastrophe in my view since the number of people participating at AfD and giving anything like serious attention to searching for sources is quite small and unlikely to increase — while the workload, so to speak, here could easily double. I will say for a fact that there is a consensus in place (virtually prohibitively high bar for elementary schools, keeping per se of high schools) — I chime in on school pieces regularly following this scheme and am with consensus of the close damned near always. Wikipedia DOES do automatic keeps of some things — scientific species names, inhabited villages, professional athletes, etc. A hard-and-fast rule along these lines on schools would be helpful. And if consensus really is that this is wrong and that each and every schools article needs to be weighed for reliable sources, that's fine. I'll just step back and watch the mayhem that ensues. The current system is a nice compromise between those who favor an expansive and those who favor a focused encyclopedia. High schools in, elementary schools out. Carrite (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughtful input. You should perhaps keep a copy of those thoughts on hand. I expect that they will have value in the future as well. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per usual. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • GEMS is the leading provider of for-profit education in Dubai and possibly in the UAE. This should be redirected and possibly merged to their article. (disclosure, I'll be taking my son there for a swimming lesson in around 15 minutes). Spartaz Humbug! 04:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to GEMS Education. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Jordan[edit]

Erika Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While she has played a number of bit part to small role characters in various things, I can't find any secondary sources that discuss her. The article has been through many revisions by a few different SPAs without any substantive improvement. As it stands now, the article is largely a rehash of her bio on her official site. The notability is marginal and I fall on the delete side of the fence. Dismas|(talk) 08:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 15:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 17:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Bandra fire[edit]

2011 Bandra fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER article, no one died, no lasting significance. Mattg82 (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Delete it. Being the author of the article, I myself support for deletion. This article was created during my early days of Wikipedia, and so please go ahead. Thank you! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Single event with no lasting news impact, and the creator and only significant contributor to the article also supports its deletion. Speedy Delete? Git2010 (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. henrik•talk 21:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bunmi Akinyemiju[edit]

Bunmi Akinyemiju (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could fix the unencyclopedic and unverifiable stuff about how awesome his businesses are and what type of nightclubs he likes (by removing most of it and leaving a stub), but I doubt he meets the notability requirements.

The cited sources suggest he may be a respected businessman and citizen in his local community, but do not seem to be the sort that confer a great deal of notability. A quick Google search found some self-published profiles and press releases, but no significant independent coverage. Kilopi (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 15:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Let's get a few things straight here:

  • If you want to merge an article, just go ahead and do it, or, if it may be controversial discuss it on the talk page. Don't bring it to AFD if you don't think deletion is the correct outcome.
  • Twitter is not a reliable source in any way, shape or form and should not be used to verify article content.
  • "Deserving" a page is not a valid argument to keep an article

I almost just deleted this since the one delete comment makes a valid policy-based argument, unlike the keep comments, but since there is also a valid argument for merging and several viable targets for said merger I'm leaving that option open. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WZRD (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
WZRD (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - They just released their first two singles and the tracklist for their album is out. At the very least, this should be merged with Kid Cudi's arcticle. --Cartman005 (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Twitter links are used properly as sources here because all of the information comes from the band members' Twitter accounts. Their album has been confirmed to be released on February 28, 2012 and is now up for pre-order. They deserve their own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.90.12 (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If all the information comes from the band themselves then it's not independent or necessarily reliable. Stone Cold Steve Austin has joked several times on his Twitter account about wrestling sharks but that doesn't mean he actually has. Still no evidence provided that the band meets WP:BAND criteria. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 00:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • And on top of that this collaboration album is somewhat simular to the situation leading up to the release of Watch the Throne. When Kanye West and Jay-Z announced that they were going refer to themselves as The Throne in context of their album, a page was created for The Throne. That page was soon after nominated for deletion and now redirects to the album page. I do still think the information on the WZRD (band) is relevant. Clearly better sources are needed, but the information would fit perfectly under Kid Cudi or WZRD (album). Maybe it's even time for Dot da Genius to have a wikipedia page of his own (with reliable sources), but there is now reason why WZRD (band) needs to exist.Dfnj123 (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 15:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. henrik•talk 21:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MC Flipside[edit]

MC Flipside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An autobiography containing no evidence via reliable sources that the subject meets general notability guidelines or WP:NMUSIC. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 03:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 03:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 03:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 15:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lacks reliable sources to show notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking Cap Studio[edit]

Thinking Cap Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD: Software program (product) which does not appear to meet the notability criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. All sources in the article are self published, press releases, or trivial coverage in link collection sites. No reliable sources support notability. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 20:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Disagree with policy/guideline cited, these are viable links proving that this product is discussed. The links provided were found with research, they are not self-published nor press releases. TabithaFournier (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sourcing looks very poor. The vast majority of the refs are not reliable, most of them appear to be trivial coverage at best. (Sorry, I was talking about the linkdump at the bottom of the page. The inline refs are quite poor, one being user reviews -unusable as a ref- and the other a press release) OSborn arfcontribs. 16:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage to establish notability that I can find. The references and links in the article do not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 15:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Are all these relists really needed? The only editor advocating keep is article creator, and has a user name that is the same as Thinking Cap's marketing manager. -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable software. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donal Boylan[edit]

Donal Boylan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GAA or WP:AFL notability guidelines Gnevin (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sorry about the copy paste from other ones. After the second one, I realised I wasn't going to write up each individual vote. The tournament is the major international amateur competition for Australian rules football, which uses a modified rule set to allow the game to be more readily adapted for use where Australian rules isn't as popular. The tournament is televised in Australia and receives media coverage in the Herald Sun and The Age. It is also covered on the AFL's website. It is likely that if these sources were searched, this player would be mentioned. It passes WP:NSPORT and there is a possibility it may pass WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep based solely on him playing for Derry, not in the AFL International Cup, which is purely a development league played by amateurs and is a much lower level of play than most suburban leagues, it is nowhere near the "highest level of competition for Australian rules football". The-Pope (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Lack O'Sullivan[edit]

John Lack O'Sullivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GAA or WP:AFL notability guidelines Gnevin (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:NSPORT Generally acceptable standards "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". In this case, O'Sullivan played for the Ireland national Australian rules football team, which is the highest level of competition for Australian rules football. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sorry about the copy paste from other ones. After the second one, I realised I wasn't going to write up each individual vote. The tournament is the major international amateur competition for Australian rules football, which uses a modified rule set to allow the game to be more readily adapted for use where Australian rules isn't as popular. The tournament is televised in Australia and receives media coverage in the Herald Sun and The Age. It is also covered on the AFL's website. It is likely that if these sources were searched, this player would be mentioned. It passes WP:NSPORT and there is a possibility it may pass WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based solely on his play and memorials in the GAA, not the AFL International Cup, which is purely a development league played by amateurs and is a much lower level of play than most suburban leagues, it is nowhere near the "highest level of competition for Australian rules football". The-Pope (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to CWF Mid-Atlantic. Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CWF Mid-Atlantic Heavyweight Championship Title history[edit]

CWF Mid-Atlantic Heavyweight Championship Title history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable high school wrestling title Guerillero | My Talk 04:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I don't think its high school, since CWF Mid-Atlantic appears to be a wrestling organization syndicated to UPN, according to the wiki article there. However, this title history is unreferenced, so it either needs to be or needs to go. Syrthiss (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not convinced that the title history for an independent wrestling promotion is notable. Similar treatment may need to be given to CWF Mid-Atlantic Tv Title History. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The nomination is inaccurate. As pointed out by Syrthiss, this title belongs to CWF Mid-Atlantic, a multi-state professional wrestling promotion. Given that the parent article is fully referenced and that this article is only 2 days old, I believe this nomination was premature. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 21:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to CWF Mid-Atlantic This article doesn't seem to merit being a separate article, but I see no reason the information should be deleted when it can be kept in a place where people are most likely to look for it. Astudent0 (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - the article does have sources which prove what it says is accurate and the info would really make the CWF Mid-Atlantic article too lengthy if merged - it seems like a reasonable offshoot per WP:SPLIT (the two articles combined would be around 60k in size). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 20:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, nonnotable web content, arguably also g3 hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Magical Amazon Mondrek 27 Nathreikka von Karthana[edit]

The Magical Amazon Mondrek 27 Nathreikka von Karthana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the references seem to be connected to the series itself. A google search excluding WP, blogs, facebook etc returns just 11 results, none reliable sources. Notability not established (too soon to tell) for "upcoming TV series". Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Philadelphia Union Reserves . Black Kite (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Philadelphia Union Reserves season[edit]

2011 Philadelphia Union Reserves season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails WP:GNG. Philadelphia Union Reserves do not play in a fully-professional leage, and reserve team seasons are generally not notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Philadelphia Union Reserves season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Although the reserves don't play in a professional league the information for this team's season is worthy of keeping. Consider merging this with main club's 2011 Philadelphia Union season Brudder Andrusha (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add into history of the main page I agree with Giant Snowman. Even major leagues in the world with Reserve Teams dont have individual seasonal pages for there Reserve Teams. They are just not notable enough for reasons Sir Sputnik put. Just make a new section in Philadelphia Union Reserves called history and make another section called season by season stats. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. henrik•talk 21:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chelcee Grimes[edit]

Chelcee Grimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Singer/songwriter signed to a label but with no releases. Only coverage I could find was the current reference from local paper. Doesn't appear to meet any of the music bio notability criteria. the wub "?!" 14:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's a Q&A with MTV, but I can't find any other significant coverage for this person. Not sold that it plus the local ref in the article is enough to get her to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO - will reconsider if additional coverage is presented.  Gongshow Talk 05:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Coomey[edit]

Alan Coomey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GAA or WP:AFL notability guidelines Gnevin (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:NSPORT Generally acceptable standards "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". In this case, he played for the Ireland national Australian rules football team, which is the highest level of competition for Australian rules football.
    This article is also a borderline case for WP:GNG, because it has one ref to substantial coverage in independent reliable sources.[30]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sorry about the copy paste from other ones. After the second one, I realised I wasn't going to write up each individual vote. The tournament is the major international amateur competition for Australian rules football, which uses a modified rule set to allow the game to be more readily adapted for use where Australian rules isn't as popular. The tournament is televised in Australia and receives media coverage in the Herald Sun and The Age. It is also covered on the AFL's website. It is likely that if these sources were searched, this player would be mentioned. It passes WP:NSPORT and there is a possibility it may pass WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the AFL International Cup is purely a development league played by amateurs and is a much lower level of play than most suburban leagues, it is nowhere near the "highest level of competition for Australian rules football". His play with Northampton is a minor country league and probably 4th or 5th level (not that Australian rules football has any form of level system). He has not yet played senior football with the "second level" team East Fremantle. None of the references provided are significant coverage in major independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  05:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pictish Mithraism[edit]

Pictish Mithraism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was created by User:Pictish-mithraism and is basically original research based upon the work of Norman Penny - see http://pictish-mithraism.com/. I can find no reliable sources using the phrase or discussing Pictish mithraism and believe it fails WP:NOTE. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- the entire article is original research on a fringe theory (or as Doug suggests above, it may not even be notable enough to achieve fringe status), incorporating extensive copyvio from a draft book by Norman Penny (it seems probable that Norman Penny is actually the article's creator, Pictish-mithraism). BabelStone (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The theory is certainly WP:FRINGE, but whether it is notable fringe in the terms of the policy, I can't tell. The thin referencing suggests not. At the very least (copyvio apart) it should be rewritten to make this crystal-clear. It is unfortunate that the article contains, among the fringe stuff, more good information on & illustration of the Pictish symbols than we currently have anywhere else. If Penny manages to get his book published that might alter things a little, though I can't see it being an RS, but the article might work as one on the book, quoting reviews etc. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The illustrations in the article appear to be taken from Penny's draft book as well, so User:Pictish-mithraism needs to identify himself as Penny and send the appropriate permission to OTRS otherwise they're going to get deleted as well. BabelStone (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt you're right, but as he has uploaded them to Commons (where I have categorized them all btw) & the book is unpublished, that is not a problem. If they are on the website & copyright is claimed that might be. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wherever it is, it says "The information contained in this publication is Copyright © Norman J Penny unless stated otherwise and is protected by international copyright laws.". Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But on a quick look, none of the illustrations are on the website, nor could I see them on a couple of the more likely-looking PDFs. Once they uploaded on an open licence subsequent claims of copyright are invalid. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, hadn't thought of that. But doesn't he have to identify as Norman Penny and shouldn't they be tagged until he does? Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree with Johnbod here, the theory must be fringe, but the illustrations are of obvious interest. Either the Pictish materials could be merged with Pictish Stones or Picts (but that's already long), or converted (rewritten) into a new article on Pictish symbols. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry to dump that into the mainspace. I was on IRC, there were no other helpers about, and I was dealing with other helpees. I couldn't check most of the refs because they were books, and google indicated possible fringe/book promo etc. (see his talk). He made all these bizarre images I couldn't understand. I asked for eyes, but nobody was there. So, I figured, best course, why wait for more non-expert eyes. Approve it and post at relevant projects to push it one way or the other. Hope it was an okay call. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and in response to Babelstones "... illustrations in the article appear to be taken..." above, I took care to ask explicitly before approval if he created and owned the images. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author commentPictish-mithraism, as explained elsewhere, is the term used by Norman Penny to describe this topic. The web site referred to is the work of Norman Penny (myself) and focuses on the unique decoding of the Pictish symbols as having a meaning in context of Mithraism. The topics on which this interpretation is based are not original - Symbols on Pictish Stones and the Mysteries of Mithras - if I have caused confusion regarding NOR on this all I can do is apologise. What I am attempting to do with this article is to take a well argued interpretation to place in Wikipedia space and in so doiong to attract edits as appropriate. The matrerial is published per se and has been on a web site for almost two years (currently in its second version). Draft books are prepared - one with publishers for consideration, the other printed and available from me. I had considered the web site to equate to publication - maybe not. I am more than willing to modify the sense of the article if that would help others to not conclude on deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pictish-mithraism (talk • contribs) 16:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I think what you've made clear is that you were hoping to use your article to publicise your idea. That's not an unusual misconception, but Wikipedia is definitely not a place for original ideas. If you get a book published in accordance with WP:RS and if it is then taken up and gets some significant notice (see WP:NOTE and associated guidelines), then maybe we can have an article about your book. But until there is discussion in mainstream sources about Pictish Mithraism, as an encyclopedia based on what reliable sources (as per WP:RS have to say about a subject, this article fails to meet our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the idea of Pictish-mithraism has been explored in other works, preferably academic ones, you should make this very clear in the text & references, probably with quotations. Stuff on the website itself is covered by your copyright notice - stuff on PDFs just linked to from the website I'm not sure about, if they don't have their own notices. For the images, you should contact Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team (aka OTRS) by email & confirm your identity to them & that you as creator agree to the Commons licence. There should be no problem with them after that. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear (admitted) violation of WP:NOR, WP:NFT, and dubious in terms of WP:COI. No evidence of historical or even fringe notability. If the images are worth having somewhere, someone should write the appropriate article for them. Agricolae (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It doesn't matter how well argued an interpretation of a topic is - if it hasn't been covered in independent reliable sources, Wikipedia is not the place for this. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author comment I understand the feedback above and would hope that the fundamantal conclusions in Pictish Mithraism are far from fringe notability - what is concluded is unique and challenges all previous interpretations of the symbols (word syllables, monarch names etc). I have made some minor updates to the article in way of clarifications. If there are any changes you might suggest to avoid deletion I will gladly take them on board. Kind regards - Norman J Penny. Pictish-mithraism (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What the article needs is a (small) set of references to independent sources that discuss your approach and interpretations in "substantial" detail (whether they agree with you or not). Since the text for your book is obviously interesting even if controversial, it's likely it will attract some discussion. Unfortunately that probably won't come soon enough to save the article now, but you could ask to have it "userfied" (moved to your user space) in readiness for the addition of suitable citations and quotations from reviewers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Even academic references saying the whole idea of Pictish Mithraism is nonsense would be an improvement, as it would demonstrate the concept has at least been aired - at the moment there seems to be nothing showing that anyone other than yourself has even considered the matter. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although you must be aware that if that is the case, some or most of the article will go into detail about the rebuttal. Pages about academic research are not the property of the author to present their findings in the light they want. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is fundamental - Wikipedia was never intended as a place for people to propagate their own unique ideas, however interesting, different or potentially paradigm shifting the originator may think they are. It is not a question of somehow rewriting to improve the page. By its very nature and your stated intent in creating it, it is in direct violation of one of the central pillars of Wikipedia - No Original Research (WP:NOR. Agricolae (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (possibly userify) -- Despite the large number of citations, I believe this is either WP:OR or WP:FRINGE or something of that kind. As far as I know, direct evidence of the nature of Pictish religion is very scanty. It all comes down to interpretation of what the symbols reresent, which is essentially a matter of speculation. I have no doubt that much academic speculation has taken place. Mithraism was a late Roman religious cult of oriental origins and popular among the army. It is thus unlikely that its adherents should ahve converted the Picts, who were a barbarian enemy of Rome, at least inthe eyes of the soldiers. On the otehr hand, it might be possible to restructure the article into one on Pictish symbols, if we really do not have one already. That would be the sole purpose of userifying it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Author response - having checked all the other references to Picts on Wikipedia there is none termed Pictish Symbols. I am quite prepared to restructure my article. Can any objection be seen, please? Thanks - Norman J PennyPictish-mithraism (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that probably wouldn't save your references to your own work. I imagine there's enough reliable sources out there to have an article on Pictish Symbols, but that would be a case of starting all over again rather than adapting this article. Even then, there's no guarantee that any references to Pictish Mithraism survive the editing process. Load of single purpose accounts attempt to add their own publication to existing article and the Wikipedia community tend to be quite ruthless in these cases. The bottom line is that if your book has not yet been covered by reliable sources elsewhere, it is highly unlikely it is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia anywhere. It might in the future should other independent sources pick this up, but we can look at adding the information if and when that happens, and not before. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and userify: This article contains info and references about both Pictish symbols and Mithraism. It brings the info together to present what Norman Penny has called a "unique decoding". Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place to do this, Norman. I wonder whether you have read the policy page WP:NOT, which states (Section 2.2): "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information...If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals…" I think the page should probably be moved into Pictish-mithraism's user page, so that usable information contained in it will still be on hand and can be added e.g. to Pictish stones. But this should not be done in a way which would make Pictish stones a platform to argue or promote a new paradigm. A page called "Pictish symbols" would probably duplicate the topic area of Pictish stones, as the "stones" seem to be the main medium through which the "symbols" have reached us. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate the 5 or so lines Pictish stones has on the symbols, yes! Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether it will help WP readers to have 2 different pages, one about where the Pictish stones have been found, and a different page about what has been found on the stones? Or whether it would be better to have one page with info about both the location and the content of the stones? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only one page please! Pictish symbols should be a redirect. Dougweller (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was so obvious I've done it now. It already talks about symbols, Johnbod has done some good work there, and it's more than 5 or so lines. Dougweller (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then I !vote Delete, OR, speculative theory with no RS; I've created a gallery of symbols at the end of Pictish stones, using the Commons images from the article-for-deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Seymour[edit]

Craig Seymour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article does not seem to meet guidelines for notability. CarbonX (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable as author (2 books != major author), and the material in his own books != source of notability. Hit best sellers rank 493,000 and 887,000 at Amazon. Thus not notable as books either. This BLP is a promotional ad for Seymour, with all that entails, but promoting oneself online != notability either. Article was created by a indeffed sockpuppeteer User:Ratel [31]. Collect (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple reliable sources cover the author and both of his books. Additional examples: [32][33][34][35][36][37] Passes the test, clearly. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SolidCAM[edit]

AfDs for this article:
SolidCAM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear violation of WP:ADVERT. It has been nominated for deletion previously ant at that time the page was entirely the work of a single editor sharing the surname of the company's founder and CEO. That editor is no longer active and the majority of the updates since have been anonymous. No improvements have been made to rener the article encyclopedic, not to provide citations from reliable sources. Various suggested sources were mentioned (by the author) during the previous deletion debate, but they have not been incorporated; and in any case, they appeared to be mostly announcments in trade journals instigated by company press releases. DaveApter (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The 21 links in the previous AfD are random crap that don't show notability. SL93 (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources either in article (well, there are no sources in the article, period) or the slew of linked press releases in the previous AfD debate which are sufficient to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. If it was a more recent article I'd be tempted to slap it with a G11 tag; it's blatant promotion. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yep, looks like advertising. No reliable sources to be found. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caucasus International[edit]

Caucasus International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Only one short independent source. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article was dePRODded with edit summary "I did everything whch you described as deletion reason", but only some external links were added to the homepages of some other publications that have unconfirmed "partnerships and advertising agreements" with this journal. The only independent (?) source is to News.Az (a doubtful reliable source, given that most of its articles are clear propaganda pieces of the Azeri government). The journal is apparently included in some EBSCO databases, but that is not sufficient to meet WP:NJournals. The PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An academic journal that offers a place for the debates among the scholars from Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and Turkey is resolutely notable. Of course the claim needs to be sourced. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no doubt that it "offers a place for the debates among the scholars from Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and Turkey", that's what their homepage says and I have no reason to doubt that. The question here, however, is whether anyone has noted this (i.e., whether there are independent sources that say this is important). This is not the case, so it seems to be resolutely non-notable. Just the fact that it exists is not sufficient for inclusion, I'd say. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually a substantial doubt that it "offers a place for the debates among the scholars from Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and Turkey", given the long history of similar publications produced in Turkey that are propaganda organs (such as the journal of the "Institute for Armenian Research", an organisation that is now operating as part of the "Center for Eurasian Studies"). The only way to know would be to find out what other sources have said about it. Meowy 16:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And since it is based in Baku, and a part of the Center for Strategic Studies (CSS) in Baku, it would be acting against the laws of Azerbaijan if it were genuinely were a "place for the debates among the scholars from Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and Turkey". Meowy 16:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 23:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. WP:TOOSOON for the usual notability standards for journals. The Hurriyet piece goes some way towards WP:GNG, bypassing WP:NJournals, but the news.az source just looks like a press release scraper to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not yet notable as a journal or magazine; I couldnt find any independent in-depth sources about the magazine. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The current status of Caucasus International definitely does not meet Wikipedia criteria to have its own page. This group just recently came out so it has a long way to redeem its identity as reliable/notable enough to stay in Wikipedia in the FUTURE. Nocturnal781 (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. One keep vote indicates that the existence of numerous blog sources implies that reliable sources might exist, but no actual evidence of such sources has been found/provided. The last vote indicates 3 new sources, but none of those meet WP:RS either. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decibel Audio Player[edit]

Decibel Audio Player (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found nothing to show notability for this software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No notability asserted or found. No reliable references provided or found. Pit-yacker (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: it's freaking hard to find Linux multimedia player called decibel, given that this name is used by KDE's multimedia framework and that search engines include results for "dB". As of now I found Softsonic's (download site) editor's review,a list of 16 Linux players with Decibel in the middle and Gentoo's review of the software. This is clearly not enough. Still massive blog coverage suggest that there might be some more reliable sources; I would vote keep (without weak) if at list one more reliable source could be found. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't know if I'm supposed to talk here, but googling for "decibel audio player" returns about 1,210,000 results. What do you consider reliable or not exactly in those results? This software is also officially packaged by the major Linux distributions (e.g., Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora). Other than that, I don't understand why this page should be deleted and not the thousands of other pages on similar software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.179.67.37 (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone is welcome to comment. However, the number of Google Hits on its own isn't usually considered as a reason to keep. What matters is the quality of the results returned. For example, forum posts and blogs would in most circumstances be discounted. As far as software is concerned, a bare minimum, I would expect to see a good number of reviews in good quality sources. In reality, I would prefer to also see coverage in at least some of professional news sources, books (printed) and/or peer reviewed academic publications. If only because it is extremely hard to write anything about a subject if the best sources presented are 3 sentences on a download site, a paragraph in a group review and a "review" that actually looks more like an installation guide.
Equally, the fact that there is other crap on Wikipedia isny considered as a reason to keep either. If other subjects arent notable, they should be nominated as well. Pit-yacker (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources, there's none cited in the article, and nobody else has come up with any.--Michig (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article denotes self-promotion. —Fitoschido [shouttrack] @ 11 February, 2012; 13:11
  • Keep. It may not be among the most known audio players, but is recognized by some sites because of its simplicity and low resource usage.[38][39][40] I don't think the article is promotional. --Mapep (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.   -- Lear's Fool 10:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Denholm[edit]

Duncan Denholm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero RS gnews hits, zero RS gbooks hits. Epeefleche (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A pro golfer should have attracted at least some coverage in the news, even just locally. However the National Library of Australia's archives return nothing for any of the varied searches I've tried. Fails WP:GNG and doesn't appear to pass any of the criteria at WP:NGOLF. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I did find a section on him in a book of Australian golfers, but that's pretty much it - not enough for notability. Given that he died over 40 years ago, there may be older stuff that we are missing - I could be persuaded to change my vote if more sources were found. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kardinya, Western Australia. No actual reliable sources provided--merely the assertion that reliable sources probably exist; other editors also rebutted some of the specific claims to reliability. Should multiple sources discussing the mall be found later, the article can always be recreated. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kardinya Park[edit]

Kardinya Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unremarkable local mall with no evidence of notability. An accurate search in Gnews archives proves this. [42] Till I Go Home (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and/or redirect to Kardinya, Western Australia. (I'm aware that the article has nothing currently worth merging, but commonly AfD's cause content/links to get added to the article that may be worth merging.) Stuartyeates (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I conducted a Google search for ("kardinya park") and went through the first 200 hits. None of these suggested anything but incidental coverage: this happened at KP, that store opened at KP, the other store closed at KP. A Google News search produced three hits, all of which were "The winning ticket was bought at KP". I'm persuaded that there's no in-depth coverage by third-party sources, and that this therefore fails WP:ORG. Ammodramus (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 155 mentions of the mall on Newsbank, including references in the following:
    Melville Times (Perth, Australia) (142)
    Fremantle-Cockburn Gazette (Perth, Australia) (7)
    Southern Gazette (Perth, Australia) (2)
    Age, The/The Sunday Age (Melbourne, Australia) (1)
    Canning Times (Perth, Australia) (1)
    Stirling Times (Perth, Australia) (1)
    Northern Territory News/Sunday Territorian/NT Business Review (Australia) (1)
At least one of these articles is completely about the mall: More traffic, new entrance, Melville Times (Perth, Australia) - Tuesday, March 27, 2007, Edition: 1, Page: 005. When looking more at these sources, another one is primarily about this mall: Centre bottle shop gets nod, Melville Times (Perth, Australia) - Tuesday, December 15, 2009, Edition: 1, Page: 007. Given the issue of many sources being offline, these prove to me offline verifiable sources that can be used to prove WP:GNG likely exist. --LauraHale (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the vote immediately above yours. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per LauraHale's search results, I'm not to sure why people rely on Google for sources when Google doesn't scan offline sources (therefore it will never show on a Google search). Bidgee (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info This is the mention in The Age. Not particularly useful to establish regional notability. --99of9 (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your second statement is correct. And the source isn't even about the mall, it's about ATMs. Till I Go Home (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Bateau Bay, New South Wales. One editor asserted that sources exist, but did not provide them; other editors indicated that every source they found failed to meet the "in-depth" requirement. Without specific evidence that there has been coverage, redirecting to the locality (which does currently mention the mall) is appropriate. Should someone actually dig up sufficient sources, it may be recreated then. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stockland Bay Village[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Stockland Bay Village (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was unable to find significant coverage of this shopping centre in multiple, unrelated, reliable sources. [43] Till I Go Home (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have access to the pay site Access World News, and there appears to be significant enough coverage to warrant an article for this regional shopping center. Many of these PPV articles are promotional, but there are a few good ones specifically by the Central Coast Express Advocate dealing with major renovations and local impact on economy. Plus I think when you add in the results of the first nomination, there is enough to justify notability...just most of the sources are past the "pay line". -CrazyHos12 (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where are these sources? You should add them to the article if you asserting notability.--Milowent • hasspoken 05:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I conducted a Google search for ("stockland bay village") and went through the first 200 hits. Only one contained coverage that might have been regarded as non-trivial: this article from The Australian. However, I don't think that its coverage was sufficient to be described as "in-depth". A Google News search turned up one hit: Stockland's own website. Fails WP:ORG. Ammodramus (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no evidence of in-depth coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's been ten days, can an administrator at least close this please? Till I Go Home (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sylvania, New South Wales#Commercial area. One editor asserts that sources exist, but the only 2 actually provided don't meet the requirement that the sources cover the subject "in-depth". Until sources are actually provided that meet this requirement, article should be redirected Qwyrxian (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Southgate, Sylvania[edit]

Southgate, Sylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. I found two sources with no significance to prove notability. [44] Till I Go Home (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:ORG. No evidence of notability outside its local area. LibStar (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously. Check out this cat Category:Shopping_centres_in_Sydney to see how many articles we have about various shopping centers in Sydney that are most probably not notable around the world (and which are?)--Avala (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. you have failed to provide any sources on how this meets WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but you have failed to provide any valid reasons for deletion that could be addressed.--Avala (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no reliable sources, no notability, as a keep voter you must show sources, did you bother to look? LibStar (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When you searched Australian sources like newsbank, what did you find? What Australian sources did you look at? --LauraHale (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what policy says that because there are other Sydney shopping malls makes this article not eligible for deletion? Till I Go Home (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources are hard to find because the name used in the article title is not the common name for it, which is "Southgate Shopping Centre." It is mentioned in several places online newspaper wise including the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. When "Southgate Shopping Centre" + Sylvania are searched on Newsbank, the following results are:
    • St. George and Sutherland Shire Leader (Rockdale, Australia) (20)
    • Daily Telegraph/Sunday Telegraph/Sunday Telegraph Magazine (Sydney, Australia) (13)
    • Sydney Morning Herald, The (Australia) (6)
    • Australian, The/Weekend Australian/Australian Magazine, The (Australia) (1)
    • Courier Mail, The/Sunday Mail, The/QWeekend Magazine (Brisbane, Australia) (1)
Given the mall appears to date to 1964 and Newsbank only goes back to 2000, it seems highly probable offline notable, non-digitised sources exist that support WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Carly Abad[edit]

Anne Carly Abad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After research, she fails WP:CREATIVE. SarahStierch (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 11:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pretty much a bibliography, sans sourcing. Carrite (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to indicate that this meets the requirements of WP:AUTHOR or WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability offered. --DGaw (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No evidence of notability provided. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nawaz Rice Engineering[edit]

Nawaz Rice Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't verify the first source, but the other two are a company website and an index listing. My own search doesn't reveal anything that would enable this company to pass WP:ORG. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE , Wikipedia police must give some respect to honorable companies from small, poor countries. Nawaz Rice Engineering is the only company from Pakistan that has put "Made in Pakistan" machinery in Europe and North America. Please see the following links so you know their footprint is global and a pride for Pakistan. Please do not delete it. It has been on Wiki for over an years. http://panjiva.com/Nawaz-Rice-Engineering/1609213

, http://www.importgenius.com/shipments/nawaz-rice-engineering.html, http://www.importgenius.com/suppliers/nawaz-rice-engineering http://www.21food.com/showroom/49881/aboutus/amanat-nawaz-rice-ab,.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.146.247 (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both the ImportGenius links give me 404 errors, so I can't comment on them. The Panjiva and 21food links are just company listings, much as you'd find in any directory. They are totally unsuitable for demonstrating notability. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Ness[edit]

Apache Ness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionable notability Guerillero | My Talk 04:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 106 Google News entries, in which he's defined as a "legend of reggae" or even "a living legend" (see here). Enough for me to substain a claim of notability. Cavarrone (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This seems to be a straight translation from Spanish Wikipedia. I'm of the view that Wikipedia is two things — a serious encyclopedia and a pop culture compendium. The former needs tight inclusion guidelines and the latter benefits from comprehensiveness and less obsession with so-called "reliable sources." Deletion nominations should be looked at from the perspective of the Rule of Reason — 1. Is the information accurate? 2. Is the encyclopedia better off with the piece or without it? In this case: yes and keep. In the anticipation that such thinking will offend the rules-loving types who proliferate at WP, I point out that IAR is a policy and Notability Guidelines are just that. (And no, don't waste your time pointing me to an opinion essay describing how the number 4 is actually > 5, a policy is higher level WP doctrine than a guideline.) In short this argument in favor of using a rule of reason is policy-based... That said, this article is a mess and somebody needs to format it correctly... Carrite (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Monkey Defense[edit]

Crazy Monkey Defense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article for a fighting style lacking notability. Sourced mostly by it's own site. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying WP:N. Prod refund with no improvement. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sources are too weak to pass WP:GNG, and it fails all the support criteria at WP:MANOTE. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Yunshui. Nobody's paid any attention to it. Quick! Roll out the Crazy Editor Defense ... on wheels. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found nothing that shows this style is notable and the only sources appear to be primary. Papaursa (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A9, artist's article deleted at AfD. JohnCD (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chasing Life[edit]

Chasing Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable album by seemingly also not notable artist Neil Taculod (see also wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Taculod). Unreferenced. Dirk Beetstra T C 07:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Funny[edit]

Dead Funny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The independent film from 1995 has only been released in VHS, and does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia's guideline for movies. Edison (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I found some reviews from Variety, NYT, and such. This makes it pass the bare rock bottom minimum for WP:NFILM, I think.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Goldsmiths, University of London. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Leopard (newspaper)[edit]

The Leopard (newspaper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Campus newspaper does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines on the basis of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. DThomsen8
  • When the paper launched in 2010, it consisted of 12 pages and was soon increased to 16 pages due to increased article submissions and reader interest. Well a 16 page news letter/paper, made up of user submissions, doesn't really sound notable. They have had three notable people interviewed there and one notable person guest edit it, but perhaps because of the university, maybe they went to school there. Anyway, I did a few Google news archive searches and found nothing. If nothing turns up, just redirect it to the university's article. Dream Focus 15:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Actually, I'm not even sure if a redirect is justified here, since "The Leopard" is also the name of the student union (or seems to be, anyway), and neither one seem to be very notable/useful as search terms. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Mukkuvar. Black Kite (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mukkuva kerala[edit]

Mukkuva kerala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An incomprehensible block of text full of peacockery, POV and little explanation as to what this is even about. There are far too many Subcontinent articles like this. There was a prod tag put on this back in November, but the creator of the article removed it. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP 30 DAYS PENDING In my opinion, the article about this notable geographic and historic area is pretty crude and should be deleted unless a lot of improvement is made in the next 30 days. Here are some suggestions. (A) Turn article into a geography stub that points back to Kerala article, which in turn should point back to India article; (B) Purge non-neutral superior/inferior language (see WP:POV), and where absolutely necessary, use neutral language to report that others think in terms of superior/inferior; (C) Add wikilinks for terms readers in US and Britain are unlikely to know, and it iss ok if they are red provided you later create those articles too; (D) Add verifiable sources for all factual assertions; (E) Add maps and pic or two; (F) Delete after 30 days without significant improvement. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's not really a good way to keep for a given period of time; inevitably, we'll forget and then there'll be another AFD/MFD that reads "Holy crap we gave this guy 30 days 6 months ago. Kill it with fire." Better, I think, to userfy it and guide the author. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then it could be "Keep pending specified improvements" and asking renoms to wait for a minimum of 30 days, and if it turns out to be longer than that the ultimate time period should be treated as irrelevant. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The time period could be indefinite, if progress is being made. If it sits for a while, someone could shuffle it off to MFD. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. None of the problems cited by the nominator are insurmountable, and could be remedied with simple editing over time. The author does not appear to be a speaker of native English, which complicates matters. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject appears notable (a notable ethnic/social group), though the text itself is a mess it looks like there should be an article about this subject at Wikipedia. Given that, I see no reason to delete it; since what it needs is a good cleanup by someone both knowledgable and with a good command of scholarly English. That's also why I oppose userfication, and think it would do much better in the main space. If we userfy it, it will just fester in the userspace of the person who created it, and stands no chance to get any outside attention from anyone that could actually help it. Articles that need cleanup should remain in the mainspace where people can find it and fix it. That's how Wikipedia works, when multiple people with different skills all end up contributing to make something better. Userfying this means it will never get improved by anyone else. Either fix it up now, or leave it for someone else with the proper knowledge and skills can fix it later. There's no rush for a perfect article now (and this one is FAR from perfect.) --Jayron32 17:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the nomination, there is an inherent problem with practically all of these ethnic articles in that they stay in this unsourced, unreadable state and nothing ever gets accomplished. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect--I'm not an expert in this field at all, but this content seems to be about the same topic as the (notably better) article at Mukkuvar. If it is, this could be redirected there perhaps. Meelar (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Animaajit (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Since I was new to Wiki, the best thing could have been to tell me what should have been done. I made a lot of effort in coming up with the data; however, if you feel this is a tasteless peacockery, please go ahead. The first time it was put up for deletion, the user was good enough to tell me that citations were required. The same had been done, and hence the tag " put up for deletion" was removed as per Wiki's standards. If you do not understand the heritage and the customs of the people here, it would be natural for you to feel that this is all useless. The prior text was placed on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mukkuva kerala. I've taken the liberty of moving it here to the main discussion page.Meelar (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination has absolutely zero to do with the subject, and entirely to do with the presentation. I resent the accusation. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's just the presentation, then AFD is not cleanup. Presentation issues aren't for AFD to deal with. --Jayron32 04:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you reading what I'm saying? This "article" is not ready for publication. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am reading what you are saying. Wikipedia would not exist if we waited for some arbitrary definition of "ready for publication". Please read Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Wikipedia_is_a_work_in_progress:_perfection_is_not_required. --Jayron32 05:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, it might just be best to redirect this to Mukkuvar. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Dynamo Charities Cup. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Dynamo Charities Cup[edit]

2012 Dynamo Charities Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was WP:Crystal, for an article which provides no attributed information. Cloudz679 05:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also listing the related articles because they are unreferenced and can be adequately covered at the main Dynamo Charities Cup page.
2009 Dynamo Charities Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010 Dynamo Charities Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2011 Dynamo Charities Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cloudz679 08:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abbottsfield Mall[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Abbottsfield Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable mall. Zero-ref article does nothing to support any claim of notability. It does exist. And run-of-the-mill things that happen at malls do occur at it. But it does not meet our notability standards.Epeefleche (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Was kept at last AFD due to sources involving everyday crimes at the mall. That kind of coverage is not enough to carry a mall article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient sources to establish notability.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not reaching the notability standards for shopping malls. Aside from the minimal sourcing available (which could perhaps be remedied by an editor with better access to Edmonton media) the mall is just 186,028 square feet and anchored by a grocery store and a future Walmart. I've cleaned up the article and added both an infobox and a couple of sources (about the future Walmart). - Dravecky (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Crimes at the mall are not about the mall itself and therefore do not help establish notability. Till I Go Home (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Malls of this size aren't notable unless something much more important happens there than is shown in this article. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I can't say I see a clear consensus on what exactly to do with this content, but there clearly is not a consensus to delete it outright. Discussion can and should continue on the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of surviving veterans of World War I[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of surviving veterans of World War I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The last one died today. The only "entry" is someone who wasn't a World War I veteran. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Due to Florence Green death, and the non related WWI person Józef Kowalski (Polish-Soviet War, WWII)
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, now that the last surviving veteran has died. We don't need a list saying "there are no surviving veterans of World War I". We don't have an article about List of surviving veterans of the Napoleonic Wars either. JIP | Talk 06:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentPut your hat or hand over your heart and bow your head, to mark the passing of an era, in which 65 million brave folk were alive, who participated in the "war to end all wars." Edison (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We should have an article listing centenarian veterans instead, i.e., an article of those vetarans who lived to the age of 100. The old URL should redirect to this new article. 80.213.84.187 (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment won't be possible since there were a ton of veterans (likely over 10,000) who lived passed the age of 100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For now. There is already discussion on the articles talk page as to the future of the article. Possibilities inlcude changing the nature of the article (which would include renaming), or redirecting. No need, or point, in deleting. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: One would have thought that the nom might have noticed that the discussion as to the fate of the article on its talk page is less than 24 hours old right now, working through whether to merge to another article, redirect or some other fate. AfD is, at this stage, redundant. Ravenswing 08:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is an ongoing discussion on the Talk page about what to do with the articel.Mithrandir1967 (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending decision by the interested parties on the article talk page. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and close, based on discussion on article's talkpage. Lugnuts (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is deserving of a Redirect to Last veterans. When the times come, pages like these ought to redirect to a page that lists the veterans who have lived the longest after wars / battles / events / etc. --Let Us Update Wikipedia: Dusty Articles 21:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename to "List of last surviving veterans of World War I," to list perhaps the last 10 veterans, the last veterans from each nation (such as merging that particular article), etc. — AMK152 (t • c) 22:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until Jozef Kowalski dies than delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Beyond any other consideration, a redirect (such as is the trend on the talk page discussion) preserves the edit history of this valuable resource. Deletion does not. Ravenswing 22:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Maybe we should re-name this page but I think that redirecting it before Kowalski dies is not the right thing to do (after all he has been on this page for around 5 Years or so) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: until Mr. Kowalski passes on; it's a slap in the face to delete it before this. If he was good enough to be listed on the page for the past five years, he's good enough to keep the page alive until his passing. Barring that, it should be kept at least until the talk page process has run its course, and a determination has been made as to its future.Tom Barrister 22:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: not only that but when World War I-era Veterans Die their entry becomes listed on the deaths page, what will happen with Kowalski's entry if we delete this page (since he should become a part of the deaths page when he does die, especially since he is the last World War I-era Veteran). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Cite Kowalski's enlistment date or I'm removing it. Marcus Qwertyus 23:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country as I suggested on the talk page. The first paragraph of the page has already been merged into that article, if the page is deleted then it would be difficult to properly attribute that content in accordance with our licence. Though I don't mind Kowalski being on the list alongside veterans it does seem pointless to have a list of veterans of WWI with no WWI veterans on it and he is already on List of last surviving veterans of military insurgencies and wars. Hut 8.5 00:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think that if we have a Re-Direct then we should keep Kowalski's entry on the Main Page if only for the fact that it is preserved there in it's regular block format alowing for an easy move over to the List of World War I Veterans who died in 2009-12 page when he does die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since we have had World War I era veterans on this list, what about redirecting this to a list containing the oldest living veterans? — AMK152 (t • c) 02:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Might be hard to put together — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As someone who has followed this page for maybe 5 or 6 years or more and has occasionally contributed bits of information ... I support keeping it in place until Jozef Kowalski passes. There has always been a format: verified, era and unverified. As far as I remember Jozef Kowalski has been on the list from a long time back when there were 50 or more people listed. I may be wrong however. Being consistent with the entire history of this page which has be a compilation of efforts of many people over the years ... I tend to think that leaving it as is until it concludes naturally makes the most sense.
  • Comment Follow-up ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I&oldid=109555236 shows Jozef Kowalski as listed from at least 5 years ago. I see someone has adjusted the page to a new format that lists Jozef Kowalski as the only remaining participant in a conflict relevant to WW 1. This seems ok to me.125.139.20.45 (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Mic (South Korea)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country per above. Yeah Kowalski's been on the list a long time, but he still doesn't entirely seem to fit and he is in the article on the Polish–Soviet War and on Last European veterans by war. So if it's just him it seems like the purpose of this list, as a list, is over. Although I should add it was a fascinating list while it lasted and fond farewell to it as well as its people.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Redirect, but to List of veterans of World War I who died in 2009–12. On reflection I think that's closer to what this list actually was than the "by nation" list. If need be that list can be renamed to "died in 2009-13 or 14 or 22 or whatever.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then why was he on here in the first place — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I say we delete it when Kowalski dies, but not until then. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to "List of last surviving veterans of World War I," per AFK152. Just one word extra is required. It would still be valuable as a list of the final group of survivors in the last decade. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 20:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had the corresponding Dutch article renamed to nl:Laatste veteranen van de Eerste Wereldoorlog (Last veterans of the First World War). Maybe this is a good name for this article. That article also lists the last surviving veterans per armed forces unit and theatre. Maybe this is an idea for this article as well. Just list the last group which lived in the past few years. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 22:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: information is adequately covered in "List of last surviving World War I veterans by country" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hominka (talk • contribs) 04:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country If someone comes looking for a list of surviving veterans (not knowing there are none), ending up at the other pages (which explicitly states that fact) seems a logical location. Redirects are cheap - there is no reason to not have this as a redirect, as it seems a valid search term. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country - Reasoning and logic for this action are sound. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alter. Change the name to "Last veterans of the First World War", and use the French version of the article as a model. Aridd (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I actually like the Italian model better it is more extensive plus they preserve Kowalski's entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alter Do not delete, then I cannot access previous versions of the page, say if I wanted to see what veterans were still living in 2005. Simply call it "Last surviving veterans of WWI" 1779Days (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect keeping history, probably to the list of last surviving veterans. People put a lot of work into maintaining this page over the last few years, and deletion would make that work inaccessible to others. There's no point in deleting good faith contributions that can be preserved by a redirect. — PyTom (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree on keeping the history, good idea.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have already given my suggestion above (redirection) - but I want to reinforce what people have been saying recently. This should be kept as a redirect because it is unusual in that it is not being deleted for any of the usual reasons (lack of notability etc) - it is (sadly) a list which under its current title no longer is valid. As such, I feel that a redirect is essential, to preserve the article history. As I say, it's deletion would not be for one of the usual reasons, and as long as a suitable target is selected, there is no reason not to keep the history. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have known WWI vets all my life and have missed them greatly as they became so few. I appreciated this entry and passed on the information posted here to my fellow vets of later times. It was a nicely done effort that we appreciated. User:lestertabey\
  • Redirect to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country as noted above. -- 202.124.72.98 (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. henrik•talk 15:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Zameer[edit]

Farhan Zameer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability or any reliable sources. Movie he works at seems self-published. Fails WP:MUSIC. prod removed Delete Secret account 00:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is an article about someone who has 'worked on' music for a film that hasn't been released... and nothing else. The article makes no claims of any previously completed product. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.  -- WikHead (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 05:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - autobiography of a student who has released music on Myspace and the like, and is working on a not-yet-released film. He may reach the standard of WP:MUSICBIO in due course, but he's some way off yet. JohnCD (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. The nominator has recommended keeping the article, not deleting it. If someone who supports deletion of the article wishes to renominate it, they may do so at any time. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural probe[edit]

Cultural probe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was nominated to be deleted for being "just a dictionary definition". I think that "the topic is notable, and that a current dicdef status is okay is the full potential of the topic is beyond that." I want to seek the wider community's opinion on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coin945 (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Anyone, including Epeefleche may redirect the article if they wish. I'm currently simply deleting the article. Wifione Message 04:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RIPAS Hospital Link Shuttle Bus[edit]

RIPAS Hospital Link Shuttle Bus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable very local shuttle service, connecting the car park of a hospital with its main entrance. 1 km long. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sign that it is notable proabably not worth a mention at Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Hospital either. MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect. Lacks the indicia of notability required for a stand-alone article. (I've been told that redirects are cheap, and the target of a redirect here would be clear).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You must be kidding! An article on a parking-lot shuttle bus? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 23:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Copyright issues force me to close this AfD as delete currently. Please note, there is no prejudice towards an early recreation of the article (and another early AfD in case the sources mentioned therein do not assist the article in qualifying on GNG). Additional suggestion to Eric, I can assist you in reinstating the article once you feel you're ready with material et al. Best. Wifione Message 04:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic Lodges of North Carolina[edit]

Masonic Lodges of North Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:IINFO, barely sourced. No other state has a list like this. None of the individual lodges is notable, and there are so many of them. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep That 'otherstuffexists" (or "does not exist") is a weak rationale. "The list is too long" is also not part of any policy. The material is actually sourced, and is a rational length compared with where it had been, and I rather think that is sufficient. The topic, moreover, has a number of implications including the "Negro question" described in [45] specifically concerning the relationship of NC lodges with others. [46] also shows in what way this article certainly could be expanded, and absolutely is "notable" for sure. Collect (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that "other stuff exists" or "does not exist" is a weak rationale. I will look at the books linked by Collect above and investigate expanding the list. In the mean time I will work on fixing the broken cite. Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also the statement User:TenPoundHammer at "No other state has a list of every masonic lodge." on my talk page does not hold water as maybe the reason no other grand lodge has a list of every lodge in its jurisdiction is because no one has taken the time to create those lists. If there were to be a list for every grand lodge, then one of those lists would have to be the first one created. Here it is. Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is in SERIOUS need of some more citation and should be based on more than 1 source. But I'm going to !vote keep if just to prevent articles from spinning up for each of these lodges. RadioFan (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm looking, and I'm not finding reliable sources that discuss Masonic lodges of North Carolina in particular in significant detail. The sources Collect mentions above are very short and really don't establish notability. Another point: this isn't about whether freemasonry is notable; it's whether a list of lodges in North Carolina is. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are several thousand Masonic lodges in the United States (IIRC, Virginia has somewhere over 200). Most are non-notable (the exceptions likely being a few of the very first lodges, maybe a few of the lodges in major cities, and those in notable locations). If a list of perhaps a dozen lodges that were notable could be generated, then such a list would have its place; as it is, if a state has a few lodges of note, then pages could be made for those lodges and linked to the state's Grand Lodge page (assuming that it exists). However, a mass listing of every lodge in a given state seems like a rather indiscriminate collection of information (and I shudder to think of entering "lodge #6" and getting a disambiguation page asking me which of sixty lodges I want).Tyrenon (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed Dead Link I fixed the dead link to the list on the GLNC website, but I doubt any of you care. Eric Cable  |  Talk  15:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (but userfy) - Wikipedia is not a directory (even a historical directory). Also, notability is not established - for stand-alone list articles, the topic of the article is a group of people, places or things. We must be able to demonstrate that this topic is notable - ie that the group is notable as a group. To do this we must cite sources that talk about the group - as a group. Such sources need to discuss the group with some degree of substance. We would therefore need sources that actually discuss "Masonic Lodges of North Carolina" as a distinct concept. I do not believe such sources exist. There are sources that discuss the history of specific lodges on the list. There are sources that discuss the history of Freemasonry in the State. There are sources that discuss the history of the Grand Lodge. But I do not believe there are sources that discuss all the lodges of NC as a distinct group separate from Freemasonry or the Grand Lodge. I would normally suggest that the list be merged into a more generalized article (say "Freemasonry in North Carolina")... but given the length of the list in question, that would be impractical. Finally, I know the editor who created this list spent a lot of time and effort on it. I applaud that effort. I suggest userfication so he does not completely lose his hard work. I would encourage him to create a personal webpage for the material, or perhaps contact the Grand Lodge and see if they would be interested in hosting it on their website. Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wonderful post - but specifically Wikipedia does not require "list articles" to be sourced to articles about the list! If that were the case, there are hundreds (or more) of deletable lists. So we are left with: Is the material reliably sourced? Yes. Do other reliable sources treat "Masonry in NC" as a topic? Yes. Is Masonry per se a notable topic in US history? Yes. Together those points allow this article to remain. Collect (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not saying the source has to be about the list... I am saying it has to be about the group that the list is listing. These are not the same thing. Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no indication that the subject meets notability guidelines. I don't have a problem with sourcing; we can probably find more and that would make it better, but that wouldn't indicate notability. I'd rather see articles about each individual lodge if notability could be established. And, indeed, if any significant fraction of them were to be deemed notable individually...then this list might be itself notable.  Frank  |  talk  17:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination statement fundamentally misunderstands WP:IINFO; all "X in one (geographical location)" is not indiscriminate, nor is an exhaustive listing a "directory" in the sense used by WP:NOT#DIR. Sources present seem adequate and authoritative. Jclemens (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree... I see no difference between this list and, say, a List of McDonald's Restaurants in North Carolina. Surely WP:NOT#DIR would apply if someone tried to create that article, so I think has to apply here.
In any case, the governing guideline here is WP:ORG - and in particular WP:ORG#Local units of larger organizations, which indicates that local chapters of larger organizations are rarely considered notable. If these lodges are not notable on an individual basis, how can we say they are notable enough to be listed as a group? Blueboar (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's My Question There seems to be three different things that people take issue with regarding this list:

1)That it is a DIRECTORY: I have made the argument that since it lists numerous lodges that no longer exist it is a historical listing as it can be used to look at what is called the "three great extincitions" of lodges in North Carolina. (The Civil War, the Great Depression, and the Vietnam Era) amoung other uses beyond a directory. Also, the orgianl list included links to website and dates of meetings which I took the time to remove as to make this list not a directory. Another historical aspect of the list is where it describes lodges merging. I recently came across an artifact from a lodge in Texas. It took me several hours on google to determine that that lodge had gone through several mergers to find the current group. Had there been a list like this available, that search would have been easier.
2)That the lodges are themselves NOT NOTABLE individually and therefore the overall list is not notable. I think that a list like this is definetly a situation where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. I think it makes as much sense to have a list of all the lodges in a state as it would to have a list of all the the high schools or baptist churches. Another good example of a list where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts would be List of curling clubs in the United States (which I also created). The question has been asked "What makes the lodges in NC special as a group?" I would say that for one North Carolina is the only State Grand Lodge to have chartered another Grand Lodge (Tennessee) not to mention that Joseph Montford (who lived near Cape Fear) was given a warrant in the mid 18th Century by the Grand Lodge of Endgland as the "Grand Master of Masons in America" and he chartered most of the original lodges in the state as well as lodges in other states. No other state grand lodge can make that claim.
3)People take issue that there is ONLY ONE SOURCE: OK, I'll accept that problem. Yes, I could spend hours and hours in libraries across the state and retreive old newspaper articles about a lot of these lodges. Yes, I could go to the Grand Lodge Archives in Raleigh and go through 220 years of "Proceedings of the Grand Lodge" books and reference the founding and, if applicable, closing of each and every lodge on the list. HERE IS THE PROBLEM WITH THAT: OK, let's say I go to all that trouble then some deletionist comes along and insists the article be deleted for reasons 1 or 2 above. All that effort would be wasted.
SO THERE IS MY TWO CENTS:If the list will not be deleted for number 1 or 2 I can work on number 3. Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eric, here's my thought (per above): The heart of the problem is the "top-down" approach to a list of local chapters. If you can demonstrate notability for a substantial number of lodges (such that a short list at the NC Grand Lodge's page would be unwieldy), then either a list or a category (like we often see for "Elections in Greece") would be in order. The point you made (about NC chartering TN, and about Joseph Montford) would seem to fit on a page about "Freemasonry in North Carolina" or on the NC Grand Lodge...but it doesn't make a comprehensive list of the lodges notable. I guess the dog that's barking loudly is the fact that, as yet, I don't know of any lodge that has a Wikipedia page, and considering that this list is basically of local chapters, it seems to fail #2. However...why not get those bits of information and do a page on the NC Grand Lodge (which is almost assuredly notable) or Freemasonry in NC (which would also likely be a good article)?Tyrenon (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, an article "Freemasonry in North Carolina" and long been on my "to do" list and I just yesterday received a book that I've needed for a while. I suppose this list, and the list for Prince Hall once I have all that info would be better placed within that article. Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a copyright infringement, as the whole table is copied vertabim from the first source cited. While information is not copyrightable, the text descriptions are and have not even been paraphrased by the author. --He to Hecuba (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is a totally different process - and is not grounds for AfD deletion. Note further that the "bare list" (which is what is taken from the source), is not copyrightable as a list in itself, and that additional material, including corections, are made here. This does not mean that the article has to be kept at AfD, but it does mean the simultaneous "speedy" is defective procedurally as a "reason to delete". Collect (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid the list is copyrightable due to the formatting of it and the editorial comments in the far right column. There is almost no other content, and therefore I believe it is eligible for speedy deletion irrespective of the other concerns with it. --He to Hecuba (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • And that is a matter for discussion at the proper venue - your blanking of the article and insertion of your personal judgement in so doing, is, however, a direct violation of AfD policy. Cheers. Wait your turn. Collect (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, this article may have copyright problems (flagged not by me, but another user at the copyright problems board, and per our policy should be blanked irrespective of other disputes. Copyright issues have legal considerations and therefore other policies are irrelevant. I suggest following the instructions on the notice, or asking an uninvolved administrator to review the case. Please do not reinstate the article text as it is potentially 'illegal as a copyright violation. --He to Hecuba (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am so angry right now Why do I even bother? Maybe if I had received FIVE MINUTES WARNING on the copyright thing that just came out of the CLEAR BLUE SKY I could have told you that I could most likely get a copyright release from the Grand Lodge! Let's say I go to the trouble to get that permission and get copyright issue resolved then the "Not Notable Mafia" will swoop in and say "Too bad!! Not notable! Delete! Delete! Delete!" Seriously... why do I even bother contributing to Wikipedia? Maybe I'll just become a deletionist troll and spend my leisure time nominating everything for deletion. At least then my work won't be undone all the time. Eric Cable  |  Talk  20:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Page is currently blanked under the aegis of a single editor who opines that the copyright violation is clear and irremediable, making this AfD moot if so, and certainly no one can opine of the AfD while it is blanked (Atche-22). Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Due to the possible copyright problems flagged by Tyrenon, as noted in the discussion above, the article has been blanked. Please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 February 14 for more information. The AFD should be extended in my opinion, but anyone wishing to write an improved list can do so on a subpage of the article talk, and the article's history is still visible. --He to Hecuba (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I need to address what happened in the order that it happened. I raised the possible copyvio at the page's talk page when I realized there was effectively a copy/paste of the article. I was told to take it to the copyright problems page, which I did, and the blanking happened. Note that about three days passed between me initially raising the issue and the whole blanking affair, and I got no response from Eric to the post on the talk page between the 11th and the 14th. With all of that said, here's what I'm going to suggest:
    • Very Complex Vote:
-Eric, get permission to use the list with a release. It will just make everyone more at ease for a whole variety of reasons. I actually didn't intend to raise the issue such as it came out, and I'm sorry for bringing this down on you...someone just suggested referring it to Copyright Problems before you could reply, and I followed the suggestion.
-Userfy the list as-is/as-was so that it can be referenced by Eric in working on future articles. There's a lot of information that can be extracted from it that is useful.
-The information should probably be partly integrated into an article on "Freemasonry in North Carolina" and/or on the NC Grand Lodge rather than as a stand-alone list. I would still be inclined to oppose the inclusion of quite so many lodges on the list (particularly the extensive number that have gone dark); however, I do believe that a summary of that information (for example, noting the large number of lodges that went dark during the "three extinctions", as I believe they were called) and so forth is good article material.
-I also wish to endorse extending this discussion for a few days, if just to discuss the suggestion that I've made.
-Tyrenon (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy G7 request. nancy 13:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Rogers[edit]

Ellen Rogers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relatively unknown photographer. I see two interviews with her by two independent magazines/websites (thus passing WP:A7). But the article fails WP:BIO. Also possible COI. — Pewfly (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; see its talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione Message 04:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Petko Kirilov Petkov[edit]

Petko Kirilov Petkov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Wifione Message 04:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Mexico[edit]

List of schools in Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See WP:NOT#STATS Ramaksoud2000 (Did I make a mistake?) 02:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Keep - You're a bit trigger happy aren't you? It's only just been created. The list is obviously under development and, judging by the template at its foot, is part of a wider project to list schools in the North Americas. Mind you, my finger will be itching to delete any redlinks :) Sionk (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed my 'vote' to keep. Information is being added to the list. Discussion about its scope can be continued on its Talk page. Sionk (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article should not attempt to list all the schools in Mexico, nor even all the secondary-level schools in Mexico. That would make it too large to deal with easily. The list should be broken up at least by state. This page should be, at most, a list of lists. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm saying that most schools would not be notable and this should be a category, not an article. Ramaksoud2000 (Did I make a mistake?) 22:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The sources, the sequence of comments, gives a strong view of consensus towards keep. Wifione Message 04:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bimoment[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bimoment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I find nothing significant about this topic, nor do I see how it could ever be more than a dicdef. Last AFD appears to have been non-admin closed improperly. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This appears to be a dictionary definition but without a clear definition of the term involved. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral. The article has been changed since my previous recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this stub does nothing beyond giving the context of the word. Neither of the references gives enough information to expand the stub. No prejudice against recreation of the article by someone who understands what it means and can give useful sourced content, but the present article is not an asset to the encyclopedia. PamD 07:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is obviously notable, and i disagree with Ten Pound Hammer and think that it can easily be expanded far beyond a dicdef. What's wrong with a one sentence stub which gives all the most essential information to the reader, until it is grown upon? I can honestly not see what the problem is.....--Coin945 (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the last AfD was properly closed, since nobody prfesent agreed with the nominator. The very large number of uses ofthe word in G books shows that an article can be written. The nom seems to think otherwise, but there's no indication he has tried to find sources or expand the article. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I wrote the last time, "This is a valid stub, and there is no reason to assume that it could not be expanded beyond a definition." —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione Message 04:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parallels between optics and quantum mechanics[edit]

Parallels between optics and quantum mechanics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research and synthesis, competely impenetrable, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The article had (and has) four references prior to being nominated for deletion, contrary to the statement in the nomination that it had "no sources". Northamerica1000(talk) 03:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. But seriously, how's the food there? Wifione Message 04:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acero[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Acero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local restaurant that was tagged and then removed from speedy deletion three years ago; there have been routine local reviews about the restaurant, but from WP: N, "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." The source for the removal of the speedy deletion in 2009 was a user who has subsequently been banned for sockpuppetry, and I couldn't find any recent Google News evidence of notability outside a Sauce magazine review (a local publication). poroubalous (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. poroubalous (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other AFD listing for Aceromath is not related to this Acero; the article was nominated for speedy deletion so it doesn't have an original AFD listing. My mistake. poroubalous (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, delete, delete - written like an advert with no independent sources. The article mentions one of Acero's dishes featured on the front cover of Bon Appetite. Their cauliflower ravioli dish is published in the magazine but the accompanying text pictured here does not actually mention Acero. Having a recipe published does not constitute multiple in-depth coverage. Sionk (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione Message 04:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pakophilia[edit]

Pakophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure WP:OR Definition sourced to a dictionary anyone can edit. OED has no mention of this, only 188 results on Google and most seem to be to the wiki dictionary. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - obviously a neologism, though a nice idea! Unfortunately I can't see any evidence of common usage other than WP mirror sites. Sionk (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The title might be neologism but the content is not, better to rename to an appropriate title. See my comment below. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, yet another article for you to add unsourced OR to. How many of those sources actually discuss Pro-Pakistan sentiment in detail BTW? Or are they perhaps just passing mentions? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Review them yourself. The topic has abundant references. And don't comment on me again. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are suggesting a move to another article title, it is you who needs to prove it is discussed in depth in reliable secondary sources. I would recommend you do so and not ask others to do your research. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one asked you to do any research. But then don't object on the citations without even reviewing them. I've provided enough sources which justify the move. The article content currently covers the same. The article title might be a neologism but not the content. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article Pro-Pakistan sentiment doesn't exist yet. So Pakophilia can't be moved to it. You would simply be changing the name of the Pakophilia article. Sionk (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the name is called a move. (I didn't say merge). Anyway, you get my point. That title will not imply WP:NEO and has sources for it. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the sooner the better Unsourced. None of the sources use the term; it's been around a while and crept into mirror sites and throughout the web. This is the worst kind of article, creating something that doesn't exist. Of course pro-Pakistani sentiment exists. Anyone who has ever eaten Pakistani food has this sentiment, at the very least--and the textiles, and the hospitality, and the poetry! If an article based on reliable sources (not these blogs and likes by famous people in this article) should be written on pro-Pakistani sentiment, then let it be written under an appropriate title. But don't take a made-up word, in an unsourced article, and perpetuate the indignity of it all by merging the crap into the history of a real article. This needs deleted, its entire history. The sooner the better. Pseudofusulina (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually the nominator seems to be right, the title of this article itself seems to be a neologism that doesn't have much coverage in WP:RS (as a term, I mean). However, the concept of Pro-Pakistan sentiment certainly would have enough coverage in mainstream sources to warrant an article. I'm neutral on this. This article can be moved to Pro-Pakistan sentiment or be deleted and a fresh article can be started on Pro-Pakistan sentiment, which as Pseudofusulina suggests, could talk about food, poetry, textiles and even Pakistani music (for example people like Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan who have had a profound influence on eastern music throughout the world. So I don't really mind - in both cases, a new article called "Pro-Pakistan sentiment" awaits to be created, either by this being moved to that title or a fresh start. Mar4d (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As if I don't miss too many Pakistani things already you mention Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan! I still urge removing the article to clean this made-up-in-en.wiki word out. Pseudofusulina (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this fails WP:GNG and is WP:NEO and WP:NOR. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG,WP:NEO and WP:OR--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since all above objections are on the title, it is better to move and redirect the article to the suggestion given above which awaits creation based on the same content rather than deleting article history which would be disruptive to the content progress. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You wish to keep the history of a made up word on wikipedia? In what is probably one of the worst cases of WP:OR I have seen thus far, and you wish to keep it? I oppose such an idea. By all means create a new article, but this one needs to be purged from history. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read history deletion criteria. OR is not one of them. It needs simple removal/redirection. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strange then the only advocate for a redirect or move is you? All others have said delete. Pseudofusulina says it far more eloquently than I Darkness Shines (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any one objecting at the content. Removing history without a good reason is not good. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well the fact that it is entirely made up and has no place in an encyclopedia would be a good reason. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore TopGun DS. Consensus here is crystal clear. This is not the first time TG has shown disrespect for consensus and persisted in POV pushing. TopGun when people say delete they mean the article needs to be deleted not the title.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep your comments to the content discussion. Commenting on users is disruptive, don't comment on me again. And consensus is achieved by discussion, you can certainly not stop me from discussing the content. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commont I will nominate the redirect for deletion as a neologism, if it is created. Redirects from made-up words also don't belong on en.wiki.Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually about the article history that will get lost (and original research would not be the history deletion criteria) if the decision is to delete. This will prevent finding sources for that content. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do, provided an appropriate target can be found. Redirects are cheap, and standard constructs such as this are reasonably likely to be useful. Also it provides a link for external sites that currently link to the article. Rich Farmbrough, 23:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
No, they don't. And it's not about cost. Redirects from misspellings, redirects from common names, but, no, don't make up words and make them redirects. There's no policy for it. Pseudofusulina (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep the focus on the AfD instead of a non existant RfD. While the title may not be notable, the content is... this is a simple rename case. If the idea is history deletion, there's no policy saying that OR should be completely deleted from history as well - which is actually disruptive as it can later be sourced. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Leiserowitz, A. (2011). Global Warming's Six Americas, May 2011. New Haven CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication: Yale University and George Mason University. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_February_8&oldid=1142635290"